The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.489 of 2024 Pradeep Kumar Patra …. Petitioner Mr. B. Das, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite party Mr. B.P. Tripathy, AGA
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
Decision
ORDER 18.09.2024 Order No. 01. 1. Heard Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tripathy, learned AGA for the State besides learned counsel for the proforma opposite party. 2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order under Annexure-5 passed in connection with Crl. Misc. Case No.390 of 2024 by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri exercising powers in terms of Section 152 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to ‘the BNSS’). 3. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner runs a hotel, which is also used as a residence and has a trade license for the same and while claiming so, he refers to Annexure-2 series. It is further submitted by Mr. Das, learned counsel that the residence-cum-hotel as fire safety measures with an extinguisher available and in support of such claim, he refers to Annexure-3 series. It is contended that despite having such trade license to run the business, action has been initiated under Section 152 of the BNSS and the residence-cum-hotel has been sealed Page 1 of 4 pursuant to the impugned order under Annexure-5. The further contention of Mr. Das, learned counsel is that there is no such provision to seal the hotel while exercising jurisdiction under Section 152 of the BNSS, hence, therefore, the impugned decision followed by the order under Annexure-5 is liable to be interfered with and set aside with consequential directions issued in that regard. 4. Recorded the submission of learned counsel appearing for the proforma opposite party. 5. Mr. Tripathy, learned AGA for the State submits that since the petitioner did not have the lodge license as well as health and fire safety NOCs, so therefore, such a proceeding under Section 152 of the BNSS was initiated, which has ultimately resulted in the sealing of the residence-cum-hotel owned by him. The contention of Mr. Tripathy, learned AGA is that there is no wrong or any error committed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri in directing the residence-cum-hotel to be sealed as it amounted to public nuisance. In reply and response to the above, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such fire safety NOC is not necessary, as informed to the petitioner by the authority concerned, after having approached them earlier, inasmuch as, since a trade license has been issued in favour of the petitioner, he has the permission to run the business from the hotel, which is at present sealed. 6. Perused the impugned order under Annexure-5. In fact, the proceeding under Section 152 of the BNSS was initiated against the petitioner with a notice served on him and after providing an opportunity of hearing, learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri has passed the impugned order under Annexure-5 with a conclusion that Page 2 of 4 to run such business, he does not have health and fire safety NOCs besides lodge license. The further conclusion of the authority concerned is that such hotel business by the petitioner is a public nuisance and the same is likely to cause injury to the public at large, particularly, in absence of such safety measures. 7. In course of hearing, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an opportunity should be provided to the petitioner to submit all such relevant documents necessary to run the business. It is reiterated by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no need for any fire safety NOC. Admittedly, the petitioner has a trade license. In fact, from the impugned order i.e. Annexure-5, the Court finds that a provisional license was issued in favour of the petitioner. Having regard to the above facts and since it has been alleged by the authority concerned that any such business run by the petitioner is likely to create public nuisance, the Court, considering the submission of Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for him, is inclined to allow production of all relevant documents as necessary to manage the hotel. The Court is of the further view that the petitioner is required to satisfy the authority concerned that any such hotel business at the location is unlikely to cause any public nuisance apart from the necessary and relevant documents being produced by him. However, considering the request of Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner to de-seal the hotel, the Court is not inclined to direct so at present, since a prima facie satisfaction has been arrived at by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri to the effect that it is a case of public nuisance for the hotel having no safety measures. Having said that, the Court reaches at a conclusion that an opportunity should be provided to the petitioner to furnish all the documents, which are mandatorily Page 3 of 4 required to run the hotel business for a fresh consideration by the authority concerned followed by an order within a stipulated period as the same would rather serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice. 8. Hence, it is ordered. 9. In the result, the revision stands disposed of with the liberty allowed in favour of the petitioner to submit the necessary documents before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri, who shall on receipt of the same within 20 days from today shall duly verify and examine it and thereafter, to pass necessary order upon a personal hearing to him and thereafter, to de-seal the residence-cum- hotel only upon a subjective satisfaction that it would unlikely to cause any public nuisance. It is further directed that such an exercise to be concluded with a final order as soon as possible preferably within next two weeks and it shall be with the participation of the proforma opposite party, who happens to the co-proprietor of the hotel concerned. 10. Urgent copy of the order be issued as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Rojina Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJINA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CTC Date: 19-Sep-2024 11:19:15 Page 4 of 4