Dismissed

Raghubir Parshad v. Bishamber Dayal

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Oct 2009CRM-M/23148/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt proceeding, the petitioner sought quashing of orders dismissing his revision against nuisance reports. The Single Judge relied on findings of fact by lower courts establishing no pollution or vibrations, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the orders dated 25.7.2008 and 08.4.2009 is dismissed.

Raghubir Parshad Vs Bishamber Dayal — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

CRM.M-23148 of 2009

¶2

¶3

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh .

¶4

CRM.M-23148 of 2009 Decided on 07.10.2009.

¶5

Raghubir Parshad -- Petitioner vs. Bishamber Dayal --Respondent.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

¶7

Present: Mr. J.P.Sharma,Advocate,for the petitioner

¶8

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral)

¶9

This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,' Cr.P.C.') in which the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the order dated 25.7.2008 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Narnaul (Annexure P-1) and order dated 08.4.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul (Annexure P-2), whereby his revision against the order Annexure P-1 has been dismissed.

¶10

In brief, the petitioner filed an application under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Narnaul, alleging therein that the respondent has installed a gatta (card board) factory in Ward No.7, Mandi Ateli, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mohindergarh, which while in operation emits smoke, foul smell and causes vibrations.

¶11

The respondent was summoned through conditional order. In

¶12

CRM.M-23148 of 2009 2

¶13

the written statement, he denied the allegations of the petitioner and averred that his father had installed a floor mill at the same place in and around 1947-48, when there was no habitation near the premises in question. The respondent installed an oil expeller and cotton ginning mill. The said firm was registered with the Sale Tax Department and with District Industries Centre. Later on, the floor mill and oil expeller were closed and the respondent installed small machinery for making card board boxes in the year 1995, which does not cause any vibration and pollution.

¶14

Both the parties led their respective evidence in support of their case. Learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Narnaul after appreciating the evidence led by the parties found that the respondent herein is a small scale unit which is engaged in manufacturing of card board boxes from small machines. It was also found that there is no big generator and since there are no heavy machines installed, therefore, there is no question of causing damage to the property of the petitioner due to vibrations.

¶15

In revision, similar view has been taken by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Narnaul, who had observed that the alleged factory is in operation for the last 10 years. The learned Revisional Court also relied upon the decision in the cases of Tarsem Singh and others Vs. Mukand Singh Mistri and another 1981 CLR 640; Karta Rama and others Vs. Manglu Ram 1981 CLR 371; Darshan Ram and another Vs. Malkiat Chand and others 1990 (1) PLR 569 and Makhan Lal Vs. Butta Singh 2003 (2) RCR 416 (P &H).

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that there is enough evidence on record which proves the nuisance which is being caused with the running of the card board factory of the respondent, but he

¶17

¶18

CRM.M-23148 of 2009

¶19

could not point out from his petition as to when did he construct his house. Moreover, it has been observed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Narnaul that “even the petitioner witnesses have admitted that the respondent is not melting card board and is not manufacturing board in the property in dispute. They also admitted that the respondent is running the unit for the last more than 10 years”. It is observed from the documents Annexures R-5 to R-28 that the respondent is running a small scale unit and has installed small machinery for manufacturing smalls card board boxes. There is no emission of smoke and there is no pollution of air or noise.

¶20

In view of the finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below on the basis of the evidence available on the record, I do not find any error in the impugned orders and hence this petition is hereby dismissed.

¶21

07.10.2009 RR

¶22

(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge

Raghubir Parshad v. Bishamber Dayal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghubir Parshad v. Bishamber Dayal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Major Singh Vs State of Punjab

Harjinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Karanvir Singh Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Ismile@Saheel Vs State of Punjab

Chandi Ram Vs State of Haryana