Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:2824 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 744 of 2018 Kalamuddin Anasari S/o Yasin Ansari Aged About 51 Years R/o- Charcha Colliery, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Jharmila Devi Parashad Ward No. 16, Chhatrapati Shivaji Ward, Charcha Colliery, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District- Kariya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh. Through- The District Magistrate Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional OfÏcer Baikunthpur, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.2 & 3/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16.01.2025 RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.21 11:41:07 +0530 1. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Bharat Gulbani, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent No.2 & 3/State. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the 2 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20.03.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Baikunthpur, District Koriya C.G. in Criminal Revision No. 1/2018, whereby the learned Judge has afÏrmed the order dated 11.01.2018 passed by the Sub Divisional OfÏcer, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 01/2017 by which the learned Sub Divisional OfÏcer has dismissed the complaint of the petitioner. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that the respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer, Baikunthpur (Respondent No. 3) under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C., alleging that a poultry farm was situated in a residential area in village Charcha Shivpur. In response, the petitioner submitted a representation to Respondent No. 3, stating that the poultry farm was not illegal and that the complaint filed by Respondent No. 1 was false. The petitioner submitted a B-1 Khasra document related to his farm, as well as a no-objection certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Sardi, Baikunthpur, District Koriya. Additionally, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Chief Municipal OfÏcer, Shivpur Charcha Colliery, on 03.08.2015. The ofÏce of the Nagar Panchayat subsequently issued a certificate permitting the establishment of the poultry farm. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the brief facts that respondent No.01 filed an application before the Sub- 3 Divisional OfÏcer Baikunthpur the respondent No.3 under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. that in vilage Charcha Shivpur the poultry farm was situated in residential place therefore the respondent No.1 filed an application. He further submits that the petition give representation to the respondent No.3 and stated all the things that the poultry farm was not illegal and the false complaint done by the respondent no.1 and the petitioner filed a B-1 Khasra related to his farm. He also submits that the petitioner filed no objection certificate passed by the Gram Panchayat Sardi, Baikunthpur District Koriya, and also give a representation to the Chief Municipal OfÏcer Shivpur Charcha on 03.08.2015 and the OfÏce of Nagar Panchayat Given a certificate for opening his poultry farm. Therefore he respectfully prays that this Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quashed the order 11.01.2018 and 20.03.2018 in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court as well as the learned revisional Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. From perusal of the record it transpires that complainant Jharmila Devi, in her statement, has mentioned that she resides in Ward No. 16, Bandhapara, Charcha Colliery, and is also a Ward Member (Panch). The poultry farm of Kalamuddin is located approximately 100-150 meters from her house. The foul smell from the poultry 4 farm reaches her house. She has written to the Collector and other ofÏcials to relocate the poultry farm elsewhere. However, the poultry farm has not been removed to date. The residents of the ward are facing significant difÏculties due to the foul smell, and people are falling ill. The poultry farm of Kalamuddin should be relocated elsewhere. If it is not removed, the ward residents will continue to face severe hardships as the unbearable stench makes it difÏcult to live in the area. As per the report dated 11.12.2017 submitted by the Naib Tehsildar, Baikunthpur, it is evident that Mohammad Kalamuddin has changed the land use for commercial purposes on land Khasra No. 401/1, area 0.020 hectares, and Khasra No. 404/2, area 0.030 hectares, for operating a poultry farm. There are no specific guidelines regarding the operation of poultry farms. Section 133(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that, “if any trade or occupation is carried on or any goods or merchandise are kept in a manner that is harmful to public health or physical comfort, such trade or occupation should be prohibited or regulated, or such goods or merchandise should be removed or regulated.” Based on the comprehensive review of the case, it is clear that the respondent, Kalamuddin, is operating a poultry farm in the residential area of Ward No. 16. The foul smell and improper disposal of waste from the poultry farm are causing significant inconvenience to the residents of the area. Therefore, under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is ordered that the poultry farm of the respondent, Kalamuddin, located in Ward No. 16, be closed. 5 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and on perusal of the judgments/orders of the trial Court as well as the revisional Court, I am of the considered opinion that both the trial Court as well as revisional Court have not committed any illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan