PERINGOM STONE CRUSHER Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 133 Cr.PC dated 1.11.2019, wherein the Sub Divisional Magistrate has directed immediate stoppage of the functioning of the quarry belonging to the petitioner and a notice has also been issued to the local authorities for implementing that order, consequent to which the Panchayat authorities have issued a stop memo to the functioning of the petitioner's quarry, as a result of which, the functioning of the quarry has come to a stand still.

(2.) Going through Annexure-A6 impugned order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, it is explicit that the order is not a conditional order as contemplated under Section 133 Cr.PC and under Form-20 of the Cr.PC . What the Section contemplates is to pass a conditional order and after hearing the concerned parties, to pass final order. The person against whom order is addressed may be directed to obey or to show cause under Section 135 Cr.PC. Interim relief also can be granted under Section 142 Cr.PC, if it is deemed necessary. Apparently, the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in this case does not appear to be proper in accordance with the purpose of Section 133 . The petitioner wants the order to be quashed. There appears to be substance in the argument.

(3.) Nevertheless, considering the gravity of the issue involved, which indicates that functioning of a school has been affected due to the quarrying activities in the vicinity, I am not intending to quash the proceedings altogether. However, an opportunity need to be given to the petitioner to be heard. From Annexure-A6 notice itself, it is clear that objections are to be filed and heard on 5.12.2019. The Sub Divisional Magistrate is therefore, directed to hear the petitioner in detail and also consider all the objections that are raised by him regarding the distance and the violation of the Rules.