RAMPALAT SHAW Vs. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is directed against an older of a Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta, directing the removal of a particular nuisance com -plained of within a month from the date of the order under Section 583 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951.

(2.) THE petitioner Sri Rampalat Shaw runs a rolling Mill at 120/A, Manicktalla Main Road styled as Messrs. Bharat Steel Industries Works. The Mill started working from the month of March 1960. It appears that the structure of the Mill was completed but before the work of running the workshop was started, the citizens of the locality, apprehending that a nuisance would be created by the running of the said Mill to the detriment of the health and peace of the inhabitants of the locality, submitted a petition signed by many apparently respectable persons of the locality to the District Health Officer, Narkeldanga Main Road, Calcutta Corporation, by Exhibit I. On receipt of this petition the Sanitary Officer of the Manicktalla area, Calcutta Corporation, visited the locality and at the time of his inspection the Mill had already started working. Thereafter, an application under Section 583 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 was filed before the Municipal Magistrate by the Corporation of Calcutta on 25 -4 -60. This application is signed by the Commissioner of the Calcutta Corporation and several officers of the Corporation. The allegation was that the above workshop was creating nuisance of sound and smoke by the running of the Mill and that was a source of danger to the life, health and property of the adjoining neighbours.

(3.) SEVERAL witnesses were examined for the prosecution to prove its case. The learned Magistrate has described these witnesses as very respectable persons. Some witnesses were also examined by the defence. On a consideration of the evidence the Magistrate held that the prosecution proved the existence of 'terrible nuisance' and that the present petitioner Rampalat Shaw was the person who was really responsible for the nuisance. The learned Magistrate, thereafter, proceeded to make the following impugned order: 'Hence, the prayer of the Calcutta Corporation is granted and in my opinion, immediate action to prevent such a terrible nuisance is necessary and if the opposite party fails to remove the nuisance within a month from this day, such immediate action may be taken as contemplated under Clause (3) of Section 583 of the Calcutta Municipal Act by the Corporation authorities.'