The Single Judge dismissed this writ petition as misconceived, holding that the petitioner had an alternative remedy to move the Magistrate under Section 133 Cr.P.C. for enforcement of the previous order and delayed unreasonably by filing the writ two years later.
Writ Petition dismissed with order 'No costs'.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION No.7989 of 2007
Dated:19.04.2007
Between:
Kolla Subba Rao.
…Petitioner
and
The District Collector, and others.
…Respondents
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION No.7989 of 2007
ORDER:
The petitioner is a resident of Nagulapalem Village, Parchuru Mandal, Prakasam District. He gave a complaint to the first respondent alleging that the fourth respondent is keeping cattle in the residence and causing nuisance resulting in ill-health and uneasiness. The third respondent and the Additional Revenue Inspector, Parchuru, inspected the premises of the sixth respondent and found that he was keeping the cattle in his residential house and was storing cattle dung resulting in unhygienic conditions in the area. Therefore, the third respondent issued proceedings, bearing L.D.S.No.37 of 2005, dated 14.02.2005, directing the sixth respondent to remove the dump of cattle dung and make it clean and also construct a wall. Alleging that the same has not been implemented, the present Writ Petition is filed.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General-A), this Court is convinced that the Writ Petition is misconceived. When the order was passed by the third respondent almost two years ago, the petitioner has chosen to file the Writ Petition now without disclosing the subsequent events, if any. Secondly, the order is purportedly passed under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C), to abate the nuisance caused by the sixth respondent. In that event, it is always open to the petitioner to move the third respondent for enforcing the order under the provisions of Section 133 of the Cr.P.C.
The Writ Petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 19.04.2007 GJ
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging an inaction in enforcing an order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. is maintainable when the party has an alternative remedy before the issuing authority.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kolla Subba Rao
The District Collector
others
V.V.S. RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
