The main legal point established in the judgment is that proceedings under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are intended to protect the public as a whole against inconvenience and should not settle private disputes between different members of the public. It also emphasized that a lawful and necessary trade should not be interfered with unless it is proved to be injurious to the health or physical comfort of the general public.

N.S. SHEKHAWAT J.

1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.PC with a prayer to quash the order dated 13.03.2018, passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Rewari (Annexue-P2).

2. The factual background projected by the petitioner is as under:-

An application under Section 133 Cr. PC was moved by 28 residents of Sati Colony, Rewari against JP Hero Honda Service Centre, the respondent by alleging that the respondent was carrying on the business of repair work of motorcycles. He was also storing mobil oil drums in his shop and also used to park 8/10 motorcycles on the road illegally. Apart from that, the oil was highly inflammable in nature and was spilled on the road. Due to this, the school going children and the women were facing hardships. It was also alleged that it was also affecting the studies of the students in the area and there were complaints of Aasthma from the residents of locality.

3. The parties appeared before the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rewari and got their statements recorded. Gopal Sharma, one of the applicant appeared and made a statement that they had no dispute with the respondent and did not want to pursue the present application. Still, the SDM visited the spot and carried out the inspection personally. After the spot inspection and hearing the parties, the SDM arrived at the conclusion that there was only one hardship at the spot i.e the respondent used to park motorcycles on the main road, for repair and due to this, general public had to face difficulty on the road. Consequently, vide the order Annexure P-2, the SDM directed the respondent not to park motorcycle on the road/park illegally. He further ordered that in case any motorcycle was found, then it will be confiscated and directions were issued to SHO Police Station, City Rewari to carry out an inspection on the disputed site and to further ensure that the respondent did not park motorcycles on the road in the future. He further directed that in case any motorcycle was found parked on the road, legal action might be taken against the respondent and the copy of the order was sent to Police Station City, Rewari for compliance. With this observations, application under Section 133 Cr. PC was ordered to be disposed of by the SDM.

4. At this stage, it requires mention that application under Section 133 Cr. PC was moved by 28 residents of Sati Colony, Rewari and as per the record, none of them had challenged the said order. However, the present petition was filed by Sheela Devi wife of Bunbun Saini, who claimed herself to be resident of Sati Colony and was not a party to the litigation before the learned SDM, Rewari.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the SDM, Rewari completely failed to appreciate that from the photographs Annexure P3, it was evident that the service of the motorcycles was being carried out on the road itself and it was causing public nuisance. Still further, the SDM passed the order that merely because of the fact that the commercial site plan was passed by the Municipal Committee, which was no ground under Section 133 Cr. PC. Rather the business of the respondent was causing lot of public inconvenience and discomfort. Consequently, appropriate action should have been taken against the respondent. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner had no locus to challenge the order dated 13.03.2018, Annexure P2 passed by the SDM, as she not even the party before the Court of SDM, Rewari, Apart from that, 28 persons had moved the application under Section 133 Cr. PC and appropriate action had already been ordered against the respondent and no applicant preferred to challenge the impugned order. Thus, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order.

6. Apart from that, the commercial site of the respondent had already been approved by the Municipal Committee and he was a motorcycle mechanic, which could n