Judgment · High Court

08.05.2003, passed by the first respondent-Mandal Executive Magistrate-cum-Mandal Revenue Officer, Guntur District, under Section 141 Cr.P.C., with regard to shifting the rice mill, by name, M/s. Sai Durga Rice Mill, situated adjacent to Mediline Hospital, Mangalagiri road, Guntur District, by the petitioner to a distant place.

#2. As the above said rice mill is situated adjacent to Medline hospital, the first respondent passed an order, dated 15.04.2003, under Section 136 Cr.P.C., for its removal from the said place because it is hazardous to the health of the patients due to its noise and dust pollution. However, as the said mill was not shifted, the first respondent conducted an enquiry under Sections 134,135 and 136 Cr.P.C., and passed an order, dated 08.05.2003, under Section 141 Cr.P.C., directing the petitioner to shift the said rice mill from the existing place to some other place, where it does not cause any nuisance. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present revision.

#3. This Court, while admitting the revision, ordered interim suspension of the order, dated 08.05.2003.

#4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

#5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after obtaining all the required permissions the competent authorities i.e., Factories, Industries and Pollution Control Board etc., the petitioner established the said rice mill. He further submitted that if really, the said rice mill would cause any nuisance, the said authorities would not have permitted the petitioner for its establishment. He contended that the first respondent has not taken into consideration these facts before passing the order under Section 141 Cr.P.C.

#6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent-State submitted that as the petitioner did not challenge the order, dated 15.04.2003, passed under Section 136 Cr.P.C., this revision against the order under Section 141 Cr.P.C., is not maintainable.

#7. Having considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel and after perusing the material on record, it is clear that all the competent authorities have issued no-objection certificates (permission to establish the rice mill) to the petitioner. If really, the said rice mill would cause any nuisance, the competent authorities would not have permitted the petitioner to establish it. In fact, the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, while giving permission to the petitioner vide proceedings, dated

21.02.2003, to establish a rice mill, had taken care to see that the petitioner shall provide closed dust collection system at all the dust generating points and less noise generating machinery and also construct husk stored for the storage of dust. All these things clearly establish that the authorities have taken care to see that no nuisance would be caused to the neighbours. The first respondent has not taken into consideration all these facts before passing the order under Section 141 Cr.P.C. The contention of the leaned Additional Public Prosecutor that the petitioner has not questioned the order, dated 15.04.2003, passed under Section 136 Cr.P.C., and as such, this revision is not maintainable, cannot be countenanced because the final order was passed only on

08.05.2003 directing the petitioner to shift the said rice mill from the existing place to a distant place. If the final order is implemented, the petitioner would definitely suffer a lot and as such, the revision against the order passed under Section 141 Cr.P.C., is maintainable.

#8. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is allowed, and the order impugned is set aside. ___________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Date:18.11.2010