The High Court at Calcutta held that a dispute over water supply between a private landlord and lessee lacks the necessary public element to invoke Section 133 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the proceedings under that section were quashed.
Proceedings Case No.145 of 2020 purportedly under Section 133 Cr.P.C. were quashed and set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR
WPA/262/2021
Susheel Dixit … Petitioner Vs. The Deputy Commissioner and others … Respondents Mr. G. Binnu Kumar, Advocate …for the petitioner Mr. Ramendu Agarwal, Advocate … for the Administration Mrs. Anjili Nag, Advocate … for the Pvt. respondent
November 17, 2021 [GNC] Item No.1
The subject matter of challenge in the instant writ application is a proceeding before the Sub-Divisional Officer, South Andaman in Case No.145 of 2020 purportedly under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The writ petitioner is stated to have leased out a portion of his property to the private respondent who is running a hotel and resort at Havelock called M/s Barefoot Resorts & Leisure’s Private Limited.
Disputes and differences have cropped up between the petitioner and the private respondent as a consequence whereof the petitioner is stated to have interrupted the water supply to the hotel of the private respondent. The private respondent approached the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 133 Cr.P.C. earlier on 2nd December, 2020 that was numbered as Case No.145 of 2020.
The matter was thereafter put at rest since the private respondent did not wish to pursue the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer. It is recorded as such on 12th July, 2021. However, at the instance of the private respondent proceedings being Case No.145 of 2020 appear to have been revived and the petitioner has been directed by the Sub-Divisional Officer not to interrupt water supply to the private respondent.
In respect of the earlier proceedings that were concluded on 12th July, 2021 this Court was approached by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Challenge was
2
made inter alia on the ground that the Sub-Divisional Officer acted without jurisdiction since there was no public element to the alleged nuisance being claimed by the private respondent against him. The writ petition being WP No.198 of 2021 was disposed of on 8th September, 2021 by a coordinate Bench holding that since the proceedings before the Court below have been closed and ended in favour of the petitioner, the petition need not be entertained.
It is submitted by Mrs.Anjili Nag, learned counsel for the private respondent that the question of jurisdiction was not raised before the Sub-Divisional Officer by the petitioner.
It is also submitted that the petitioner has already complied with the direction of the Sub-Divisional Officer and the proceedings have since been closed, the petition is otherwise infructuous.
This Court has heard the rival contentions of the parties.
Section 133 Cr.P.C. can be invoked by the Sub-Divisional Officer only there is any public nuisance caused by act or omission by a private person.
This Court sees that the dispute as regards water supply between the petitioner and the private respondent is private, having no public element whatsoever. The Sub-Divisional Officer did not have in fact jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C.
Hence, the impugned proceedings being case No.145 of 2020 purportedly under Section 133 Cr.P.C. shall stand quashed and set aside. The Sub-Divisional Officer, South Andaman is hereby cautioned against entertaining disputes of this nature under Section 133 Cr.P.C.
It is made clear that this Court has not entered into merits of the rival claims being made by the private respondent against the petitioner and vice-versa. The parties may agitate the same before a Court and/or forum of competent jurisdiction.
The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of. There shall be however no order as to costs.
( Rajasekhar Mantha, J. )
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Sub-Divisional Officer had jurisdiction under Section 133 Cr.P.C. to entertain proceedings arising from a purely private dispute regarding water supply.
Whether a dispute between a landlord and lessee regarding water supply constitutes a public nuisance under Section 133 Cr.P.C.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Susheel Dixit
The Deputy Commissioner and others
Private respondent
Rajasekhar Mantha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
