High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
M/s. Gurpal Singh Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors - CWP-8159-2006  RD-P&H 3295 (18 May 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.8159 of 2006
Date of decision: May 30,2006
M/s. Gurpal Singh Kuldip Singh V. State of Punjab and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HOB'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.MITTAL
Present: Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Advocate,for the petitioner.
Mr.M.C.Berry, Sr. DAG, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr.Arvind Mittal,Advocate, for respondents No.3,5 and 6.
The petitioner has approached this court for issuance of a writ of mandamus for directing respondent No.2 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ropar to allow the petitioner to run his Foundry/furnace located at Ward No.7, Morinda. According to the petitioner the Foundry in question is ordered to be closed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate by passing oral orders.
Shri M.C.Berry, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has, on instructions, stated that proceedings under section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure initiated by the private respondents are still pending adjudication before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Shri Berry further informs that Sub Divisional Magistrate visited the spot in the presence of the petitioner and the complainant and issued certain directions in the presence of all the parties, requiring the petitioner not to run the furnace/Foundry except with the prior permission from the Sub Divisional Magistrate.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also taken into consideration the stand taken by the Sub Divisional Magistrate.
We are satisfied that even though proceedings under section 133 of the Code have been initiated by the private respondents even then before the adjudication of the aforesaid proceedings, the Furnace/Foundry run by the petitioner could not be ordered to be stopped. The petitioner ( as Civil Writ Petition No. 8159 of 2006 2
a respondent in the aforesaid proceedings) was entitled to contest the aforesaid proceedings and it is only after determination of the fact that the foundry/furnace in question is a source of nuisance, that order could be passed directing the aforesaid respondent to stop running the foundry/furnace.
Consequently, we allow the present petition and permit the petitioner to run the furnace/ foundry in question in accordance with law.
However, the permission granted by this court shall be subject to final determination of proceedings under section 133 of the Code by the competent authority.
Keeping in view the fact that some orders have earlier been passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate , it would be appropriate that if the proceedings under section 133 Cr.P.C. are conducted before some other officer. We order accordingly.
However, we make it clear that the transfer of the proceedings from the present Sub Divisional Magistrate would not be taken as an expression of any opinion against respondent No.2. As a result of the aforesaid orders, we direct the Deputy Commissioner,Ropar to allocate the aforesaid proceedings under section 133 of the Code to another officer of competent jurisdiction.
The petitioner and the private respondents shall appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Ropar on June 12,2006 who shall allocate the proceedings to the Court of competent jurisdiction.
A copy of this order be given dasti on usual charges.
(Viney Mittal )
May 30,2006 ( A.K. Mittal )
Civil Writ Petition No. 8159 of 2006 3
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.