POURA SAMITHI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revision petitioner is one of the parties who set the proceedings u/s 133 Cr.P.C in motion and the respondents are the opposite parties in the said proceedings. This revision is directed against the proceedings No.C3-6005/2012 dated 03/05/2013 of the District Magistrate, Thrissur. The District Magistrate took notice of the complaints made by the Revision petitioner and other residents of the locality, alleging that the industrial units functioning in the major industrial estate, Ollur are polluting water in that area and thereby causing health hazards and nuisance warranting interference invoking the jurisdiction u/s 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also alleged that those industrial units have not taken preventive measures required under law to abate such nuisance. On receipt of the complaints, the District Magistrate has constituted a Sub Committee under the supervision of the Environmental Engineer, Pollution Control Board to enquire and report the allegations raised in the complaints. The Committee inspected the units on 26/04/2013 and submitted a report recommending to close down all units except only one unit by name 'Bright & Company'. On the basis of that report, the District Magistrate found that the preventive measures taken by the industrial units are not satisfactory and that caused to issue an order invoking the power under Sec. 133 of the Cr.P.C. In that order, all the industrial units except 'Bright & Company' were ordered to stop their functioning forthwith and also they were called upon to appear on 10/05/2013 if they have any objection to the said order.

(2.) THE grievance of the Revision petitioner in this revision is that while so, on 03/05/2013 i.e., before the date fixed for hearing and consideration of the matter, the District Magistrate, suo motu, without advancing the case which is posted to 10/05/2013 or without giving notice to the parties to the proceedings, more specifically complainants, vacated the order dated 27/04/2013 as much as it relates to eight industrial units and thereby the District Magistrate has given undue benefits to the said units by- passing the procedure contemplated u/s 133 of the Cr.P.C. This order is under challenge in this revision petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents 5 to 12 submits that on receipt of the complaints, the District Magistrate has conducted an omnifarious enquiry by constituting a Sub Committee and they made certain recommendations to see that the alleged health hazards and nuisance are abated. After the issuance of the order under Sec.133 Cr.P.C, respondents/industrial units have complied the recommendations of the Sub Committee and the same is reported by Ext.R5(a) by the Environmental Engineer. Therefore, in view of the substantial compliance of the directions of the Environmental Engineer, the District Magistrate passed the impugned order, vacating the order u/s 133 and permitted the respondents units to function. So there is no irregularity in the proceedings. The learned counsel further submits that a large number of workers are employed in these industrial units and if these proceedings are allowed to go indefinitely, those employees will suffer a lot. Therefore, an early disposal of the entire proceedings is inevitable for the interest of justice.