Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sumit Nandi vs Unknown on 19 February, 2019
Author: Jay Sengupta
Bench: Jay Sengupta
1 9.02.2019
CRR 88 of 2019 Ct. No. 29 In the matter of:- Sumit Nandi ...petitioner Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Mr. Iftekar Munshi.
...for the petitioner.
This is an application challenging an order dated 24th December, 2018 passed the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Court, Bankura in Criminal Revision Case No.45 of 2017, thereby affirming the order dated 1st August, 2017 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Bankura in Misc. Petition Case No.446 of 2016 under Section 133 of the Code.
The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was carrying on business with all necessary permissions and licenses from the State Government and other concerned authorities. He submits that a mass petition was filed by some local people objecting to the running of his business at the said premises. According to him, relying on a cryptic police report which only mentioned about the existence of a smell of chemical fertilizer coming from the godown in question, the learned Magistrate, by an unreasoned order, directed the present petitioner to remove his godown of fertilizers and insecticides from the land in question within a stipulated time. The learned Advocate contends that without there being any imminent danger to the property and consequential nuisance to the public, as would be evident from the facts of the present case, the learned revisional Court dismissed the criminal revision filed by the present petitioner and affirmed the order of the learned Executive Magistrate.
I have heard the submissions of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and have perused the revisional application including the annexures.
Let the petitioner serve a copy of this application upon the State 2 through the learned Public Prosecutor and upon the opposite party nos.2 to 18 by speed post with acknowledgment due, within a week. An affidavit of service to that effect shall be filed on the next date of hearing.
Let this matter appear as a 'Contested Application' two weeks hence.
The operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed for a period of six weeks from this date.
The parties shall be at liberty to pray for extension or modification or cancellation or vacating of the impugned order upon notice to the other side.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)