Dismissed

Sri. Md.Jabluddin, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC16 Jul 2010CRLRC/39/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to an order closing his bone mill. The Court held that the Magistrate's order was well-reasoned, considered all objections and public interest regarding health and nuisance, and found no illegality requiring reversal.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed, the impugned order of the Executive Magistrate was upheld, and the bone mill closure order was allowed to stand.

Sri. Md.Jabluddin, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.39 OF 2010

¶3

DATE:16.07.2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

Sri Md. Jabluddin And:

¶6

…… Petitioner

¶7

The State of AP, rep. by its PP and 2 others

¶8

…..Respondents

¶9

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶10

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.39 OF 2010

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

1. This is the third revision petition in series filed by the petitioner questioning order passed by the Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar, Mangalagiri dated 08.02.2009 directing the petitioner to close bone mill being run by him with immediate effect and to shift the material therefrom within seven days. In the year 2007, when similar order was passed, the petitioner questioned the said order in Criminal Revision Case No.1060 of 2007. The said revision petition was allowed by this Court setting aside the order and remitting back the matter to the Magistrate to take evidence as required under Section 138 Cr.P.C and to pass necessary orders. Thereafter another order dated 03.08.2009 was passed by the Magistrate to the same effect. The petitioner filed Criminal R.C.No.1322 of 2009 and this Court disposed of the said revision petition at admission stage and directed the Executive Magistrate to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with Section 138 Cr.P.C. Thereupon, the Executive Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 08.02.2009 in MC.No.96 of

¶13

2009. For the third time, the petitioner approached this Court with this revision petition. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the impugned order is not a speaking order and that the Executive Magistrate did not consider objections raised by the petitioner. On a reading of the impugned order, it is evident that the Executive Magistrate considered objections of the petitioner as well as his contentions to the effect that he would incur loss of Rs.1.00 crore in case of closure of the mill and that he advanced lakhs of rupees to his consignees and that 50 labour families depend upon his mill. The Executive Magistrate found that the said contentions of the petitioner cannot override the public interest at large as the public are suffering from smell nuisance and the bone mill is causing imminent danger to their health and comfort. The Executive Magistrate also took note of Environmental Engineers’ opinion about the smell nuisance. The Magistrate also considered statements of 11 persons in the locality including 5 Municipal Councillors. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order is bereft of reasons and lack of consideration of objections of the petitioner.

¶14

2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that slaughter house located in the locality is causing more nuisance than the bone mill. The question is not which of the two is causing more damage to the public health and comfort, but whether the petitioner’s bone mill is causing discomfort and ill health to the public. It is noted by the Executive Magistrate that the petitioner made assurance on 16.11.2005 itself for shifting his bone mill to a far off place within three years. In spite of it, the petitioner was successfully continuing his activity for the last five years with the aid of this litigation. No doubt, when the petitioner started the mill, it may be at a distance from dwelling houses, and because of expansion of the town, dwelling houses might have come around the petitioner’s bone mill. He cannot run the bone mill in the locality where public reside. Therefore, I find that the impugned order passed by the Executive Magistrate does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality or impropriety.

¶15

3. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.

¶16

__________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J.

¶17

Date:16.07.2010.

¶18

Gk.

¶19

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶20

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.39 OF 2010

¶21

DATE:16.07.2010

¶22

Gk.

Sri. Md.Jabluddin, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Md.Jabluddin, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Jagan Mohan Rao, Vs State of A.P.

Suravaram Sivaprasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kotpati Ramesh, Vs Kotapati Rama

M/s. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd, (Hudco) Vs M/s. Saumya Medicare International Ltd, Having its

Jayamma, Vs Peddannagari Venkata Swamy

B.Laxminarayana, Vs a.S.Kiranmayee