ESWARAN Vs. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE CUM-REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision Case as against the order dated 16.4.2015 passed by the respondent under Section 133(A) of Cr.P.C.

(2.) THE petitioner is running a Prawn Farm at Avurivakkam village, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District. Since the drainage water from the said Farm is being connected with the nearby canal, lake, channel and pond and as it affects the agricultural land as well as the drinking water in the said locality, based on the report of the Agricultural Department, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30.3.2015 directing the petitioner to appear and submit explanation. Since the petitioner has not given any reply on the said show cause notice, the respondent has passed the impugned proceedings under Section 133(A) of Cr.P.C directing the petitioner to remove the Prawn Farm. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has come forward with this revision.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without hearing the parties concerned, the impugned order has been passed. According to the learned counsel, the Executive Magistrate should conduct enquiry and decide whether there was reliable evidence or not to come to the conclusion to act under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the procedure for enquiry has been categorically contemplated in Section 133 Cr.P.C. by passing conditional order and requiring to show cause why the conditional order should not be made absolute. Therefore, the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in Ind Barath Powergencom Ltd., v. The Revenue Divisional Officer - cum - Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kovilpatti Sub Division, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District (Crl. R.C. No. 534 of 2011 and other connected matters) to substantiate the above contention.