BIRABHANU MOHAPATRA Vs. NARENDRA NATH MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is directed against the order of the Executive Magistrate, Cuttack passed under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the petitioner to shift an industry from the site where it is located at present and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Criminal Revision No. 9 of 2002 confirming the said order.

(2.) The opposite parties are resident of Manavila under Malgodown P.S. and they filed an application under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a direction to the present petitioner to remove the nuisance caused due to running of a factory by the petitioner. The case of the opposite parties is that Manavila is a residential area constituting several residential houses. One Bishnu Jam who owned one of the houses has given on rent the said house to the petitioner for using the same as an industry for manufacturing steel furniture and also for fabrication of iron and steel frames. It is alleged in the petition that due to running of the manufacturing unit within the residential area, the sound created for manufacturing the items as mentioned above between 8.00 A.M. to 8.00 P.M. is unbearable and causes nuisance. It is also alleged that due to the sound created in course of manufacturing, the students are not able to read and local residents are not able to sleep peacefully. The local residents are not in a position to raise objection because of high handed action of the petitioner and his men and the F.I.R. lodged before the Malgodown P.S. has brought no result, forcing them to approach the Court for the above purpose. The petitioner objected to the prayer on the ground the said industry has been set up with permission from the District Industries Centre and the sound alleged to be created in course of manufacturing is within the specified norms as prescribed under the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000 and, therefore, there is no necessity of shifting the industry to any other place.

(3.) The Executive Magistrate in course of the proceeding called for a report from the local police station and on the basis of the report submitted by the local police as well as the oral evidence adduced before him allowed the application and by order dated 15.12.200 1 directed the petitioner to shift the industrial unit to some other site. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 9 of 2002 before the learned Sessions Judge. Cuttack and by judgment and order dated 9.5.2002 the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision confirming the order passed by the Executive Magistrate. Challenging the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has approached this Court in this application under Section 482 Cr. P.C.