PATRICK SYIEM Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 10.10.2002 all these criminal revision petitions being based on similar and identical factual matrix involving common question of law, were heard and dismissed for the reasons to be recorded later on and accordingly the reasons for dismissing all those petitions are now recorded as under: -

(2.) The order dated 30.8.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Ri Bhoi, Nongpoh in mise. case No. 25/2002 making the conditional order dated 31.7.2002 passed by the said authority in the above mentioned case under Section 133 Cr.P.C. absolute and thereby directing the closure and removal of the illegal toll gates at the places mentioned in the said order, is the subject matter of challenge in all these criminal revisions.

(3.) The learned Additional District Magistrate, upon perusal of the report of the Extra-Assistant Commissioners relating to illegal erection of toll gates in National Highways as well as State PWD Roads within the Ri Bhoi District and on being satisfied, by his order dated 31.7.2002 issued show cause notice under Section 133 Cr.P.C. to the revision petitioners as to why the toll gates in question should not be removed fixing 16.8.2002. On receipt of such show cause the petitioners in criminal revision Nos. 14(SH)/2002 and 16(SH)/2002 individually and separately replied to the said show cause stating that the toll gates in question at different places on the State PWD roads are being operated on being permitted by the Syiem of Mylliem who duly appointed the petitioners as lessee for the period from 1.4.2002 to 31.3.2003. It is further stated that the gates in question are the customary gates which as per custom and practice have always been in existence as tolls are always being charged on goods by the Syiems who are the heads of traditional institutions being recognised by the Constitution of India, As such, it is contended that provision of Section 133 Cr.P.C. are not attracted and further after taking evidence under Section 138 Cr.P.C. only, the court can pass any such order-conditional or otherwise. The reply of show cause dated 14.8.2002 (Annexure-4 to the petition in criminal revision No. 14 (SH )/2002 which is also exactly similar to the show cause in criminal revision No. 16(SH)/2002) is quoted herein as under :- IN THE COURT OF SHRI T.K. MARAK, ADDITIONAL, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE: RIBHOI DISTRICT: NONGPOH. C.R. (Misc) Case No. 25 of 2002 IN THE MATTER OF: Show cause by Shri Patrick Syiem to the Order dated 31.07.2002 u/s. 133 Cr.P.C. MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH: 1. That the undersigned has been served with a show cause Notice u/s. 133Cr.P.C. as to why the toll gate he is operating should not be removed vide order dated 31.7.2002. 2. That the undersigned is not operating the gate at Byrnihat, Raid Marwet without authority of law but, the same is being operated by him as a duly appointed lessee under the Syiem of Mylliem vide order No. M.S./III(F)-15/2000-02/1658-62 dated 4.3.2002 and the same is inforce from 1.4.2002 to 31.3.2003. This facrum of the lease along with the Schedule of rates leviable has also been duly communicated to the acting Syiem, Raid Marwet and also O/C of Byrnihat Police Station. Copies of lease dated 4.3.2002 along with Schedule of Rates is annexed hereto and is marked as Annexure-1 and 2 respectively. 3. That in my case Section 133 is inapplicable and further Section 138 enjoins a duty upon this Hon"ble Court after taking evidence to see whether the order made is reasonable and proper and only after such satisfaction can issue and order conditional or otherwise. Furthermore, the gate which the undersigned is operating is a customary gate which as per custom and practice has always been in existence as tolls are always being charged on goods by the Syiems who are the heads of traditional institutions who are recognised by the Consitution of India.