2016 Supreme(All) 3188
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.
Bokhara Palace Pvt. Ltd. and Others - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Application No. 19142 of 2016
Decided On : 24-06-2016
For the Applicant :- Hari Narayan Singh,Sri O.P. Singh,Vinay Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Procedural adherence to Section 133 of Cr.P.C. and the importance of the applicants' participation in lower court proceedings.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of Conditional Order - Section 133 of Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought to quash a conditional order to stop their factory under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. based on allegations of air and water pollution causing harm to people and the environment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the conditional order was valid as it was based on a police report and satisfied the requirements of Section 133 of Cr.P.C. The court emphasized the need for the applicants to submit their objections and evidence in the lower court.
Issues: Validity of the conditional order under Section 133 of Cr.P.C., failure of the applicants to submit objections and evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the procedural requirements of Section 133 of Cr.P.C. and the importance of the applicants' participation in the lower court proceedings.
Final Decision: The application was disposed of with the observation that the impugned order and proceeding did not warrant interference.
Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the impugned conditional order dated 27.4.2016 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mariyahun, Jaunpur/respondent no. 2 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 2/16, State vs. Shamim Alam and others, under Section 133 Cr.P.C., pending in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jaunpur.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.
Submission of the counsel for the applicants is that the impugned order passed by the S.D.M. dated 27.4.2016 whereby a time limit of one week has been given to the applicants to stop the factory and show cause why the conditional order should not be made absolute, is not tenable in the eyes of law as without finally adjudicating upon the correctness of the allegations on the basis of which the factory has been required to be stopped, a direction to stop the factory has been made. Further submission is that the factory is being run in accordance with the rules and regulations and the running of the factory is not causing any kind of such nuisance or unlawful activity which may have any harmful effect on anything at all. But, it has been fairly admitted by the counsel that so far no objections in reply to the impugned show cause notice or the conditional order have been submitted on behalf of the applicants in the court below.
3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have perused the record in the light of the same.
4. It appears that the grievance of the people and a complaint with regard to the manner in which the factory in question was being run and the air pollution and the water pollution etc. which it was said to have been causing, was reported to the police and the station officer of the police station was apprised about the contaminating deleterious effects of the same. In this regard some application in writing was also made to the police, according to which men, animals and even the plantations were being badly affected by the same. It further transpires that an inquiry in this regard was also made by the police and it was found by the police that there was substance in the complaint. The findings of the police after enquiry were also to the same effect and as a result thereof a report was made by the police to the concerned Magistrate about the polluting effects of the factory alleging therein that as the factory had in its near vicinity, a village also, the nearby crops and the passersby were all being injuriously affected by the polluting effects of the factory in question. In fact, according to this report made by the police to the Magistrate concerned, even this was alleged that some men were also said to have died because of grave polluting effects of the factory. It was on the basis of such a report made by the police that the S.D.M. deemed it fit to issue a notice under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. to the applicants and made a conditional order in this regard which has been challenged by the applicants in this Court.
5. The perusal of the impugned conditional order or the show cause notice purported to have been given under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. does not reflect anything wrong on the basis of which the same may be assailed. The police report was duly considered by the S.D.M. and the S.D.M. was satisfied that dust and pollution emitted by the running of factory was adversely and seriously affecting the health of the people around and was also causing environmental damage to ecology and the crops etc. around it. Being so satisfied, a time bound notice was given to the applicants to stop the objectionable activity and to show cause as to why the conditional order should not be made absolute. In this regard, a bare perusal of the relevant Section 133 of Cr.P. C. would indicate that if the S.D.M. concerned is satisfied on a report of the police officer or even on any other information t