Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sube Singh vs M/S Jkg Industries on 11 February, 2013
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
Criminal Revision No.3289 of 2011 (O&M) :1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: February 11, 2013
Sube Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
M/s JKG Industries, Ganpat Nagar, Circular Road, Rewari &
others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr.Gopal Sharma, Advocate.
Mr.Shivendra Swaroop, AAG, Haryana.
Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate.
Mr.Yogesh Saini, Advocate,
for Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate.
Mr.Gitish Bhardwaj, Advocate.
*****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
This order will dispose of five Criminal Revision Nos.3289 of 2011 (Sube Singh Versus M/s JKG Industries & others), 3250 of 2011 (Sube Singh Versus M/s Swastic Perforators & others), 3290 of 2011 (Sube Singh Versus M/s National Metal Industries & others), 3291 of 2011 (Sube Singh Versus M/s Dynamic Perforators & others) and 3300 of 2011 (Sube Singh Versus M/s N.G.R. Metal Perforators Unit-I & others). The facts are being taken from Criminal Revision No.3289 of 2011.
The petitioner has filed this revision to challenge the order passed by Additional District Judge, Rewari, who has interfered with the order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rewari under Section 133 Cr.P.C. against the respondent-Industrial Units requiring them to Criminal Revision No.3289 of 2011 (O&M) :2 shift the same as they were causing noise and air pollution in the residential area.
The petitioner made a complaint to the Government authorities against the Industrial Units, which were running in the regular residential colony at Ganpat Nagar, Rewari. His grievance was that these Units were causing noise and air pollution in the concerned residential area. When the officials did not take any action, the petitioner had even approached the Lokayukta Haryana, who had directed Deputy Commissioner to take action against the Industrial Units, situated in regular residential area in accordance with law. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner had forwarded the report that the noise could not be heard outside the factory premises and, therefore, the Sub Divisional Magistrate had not found any case for taking action under Section 133 Cr.P.C.
The petitioner, however, disputed this report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate on the ground that it was false report. The petitioner would refer to the letter of the Regional Office, Haryana State Pollution Control Board, Dharuhera, where these Industrial Units had installed DG sets of the capacity of 20 K.V.A., which were causing air pollution and noise pollution. It is stated that Sub Divisional Magistrate, Deputy Commissioner and Lokayukta themselves have inspected the JKG Industry. The Lokayukta then required from the local Administration as to how these Industrial Units were permitted to function in the residential area. The complaint by the Lokayukta was accordingly disposed of.
The matter was then taken up by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rewari, who passed the impugned order directing these Industries to stop their DG Sets and removed the DG Sets functioning in the residential area to be shifted to the industrial area within three months. The respondent-industries accordingly filed a revision against the said order before the Addl.Sessions Judge, Rewari, who has interfered with the order passed by the Magistrate. As per the finding returned by the Addl.Sessions Judge, the Small Scale Industries are not causing any air pollution. As per the Court, Criminal Revision No.3289 of 2011 (O&M) :3 there is hardly any occasion for invoking the provisions of Section 133 Cr.P.C.
The counsel appearing for the respondents would also urge that these industries were established after taking due permission. However, the fact that these industries are working in residential area, it may be cause of some nuisance. Whether such nuisance would be permissible finally is to be seen by the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned. The State counsel points out that Sub Divisional Magistrate was initially required to pass a conditional order giving chance to the respondents to remove the noise or the other pollution, if any was being caused and only in case they have failed to remove the nuisance, the final order could have been passed. This aspect apparently has escaped notice of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rewari, who has himself gone into the merits of the controversy and has come to a different conclusion. It would be appropriate, under the circumstances, to remand this case back to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to reconsider the report in the light of legal position. In case he comes to any conclusion that these industries are causing any noise pollution or any other pollution as the case may be, he would pass any appropriate order in accordance with law strictly in terms of the provisions of Section 133 Cr.P.C.
The parties would be at liberty to plead all their respective cases before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, who shall then consider if this nuisance can otherwise be removed or this has to be permanently stopped.
The revision petitions are accordingly disposed of.
February 11, 2013 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE