DIESEL TUBES INDIA Vs. GURCHARANJIT SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents filed a complaint against the petitioner under section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code (herein after called the Code) on the allegations that respondents are residents of Shimlapuri, Ludhiana and the petitioner is running an industrial unit in the name and style of M/s Diesel Tube (India) in which diesel engine parts are manufactured and processed. For manufacturing and processing, the petitioner among other machinery has installed draw bench (Jindi) and furnace. The furnace is fuelled by crude oil and for supply of air to the furnace a blow with high power electric motor is used. The unit installed by the petitioner is creating nuisance and it is prayed that the petitioner's unit be prohibited or in the alternative regulated under section 133 of the Code. The petitioner contested the application. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana passed the following order :-

(2.) Shri K.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petition has been filed by Gurcharnajit/Singh- respondent No.I only to blackmail and extract money. He contended that Gurcharanjit Singh himself was running an industry before enrolment as an Advocate in the year 1995. He contended that adjoining to the premises of the petitioner, number of other persons are running industry but the petition against them has not been filed. He contended that Jagat Singh one of the resident of the locality filed Civil Suit No. 79 dated 11.1.1987 at the instance of Gurcharanjit Singh restraining the petitioner and his agent from running an industry installed at 1317/3, street No. 6 Shimlapuri at night between 7.45 P.M. to 9.00 A.M. on the ground that Shimlapuri is residential area. Alongwith the suit an application under 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was also filed but the same was dismissed and Jagat Singh filed an appeal against the said order. The same was also dismissed on 21.10.1998. He further submitted that respondent No.1 has also filed a civil suit titled Gurcharanjit Singh v. M/s Diesel Tube India Limited and others for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and other and his employees, associates and agents from running Gindi (Machinary) Furnance, Press and other machinery installed in property no. 1317/3, street no. 6 Shimla Puri on the ground that it is nuisance and creating pollution in the air and another suit was also filed by respondent no.1 against the petitioner and for impleading Environmental Engineer, Punjab Pollution Control Board and another suit was filed by Gurcharanjit Singh and others v. Municipal Corporation and others and all those suits have been withdrawn. He contended that the area does not fall in the residential locality and has been left out from the town planning and building scheme for enabling the residents to set up industrial unit as it is clear from Annexure P-9. He contended. that when respondent Gurcharanjit Singh failed to get relief from the civil court then he filed the complaint under section 133 of the Code of Code of Criminal Procedure. He further submitted that with the consent of the respondents, the local commissioner was appointed in this case who gave his report that the area falls in the commercial/industrial. He contended that the only purpose of respondent No.1 is to harass and humiliate the petitioner. He conended that when the area is an industrial area then there is no question of closing of the industrial unit and shifting somewhere else.

(3.) On the other hand Shri S.S. Rangi, counsel, for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is running the unit in the residential area of the municipal corporation, Ludhiana which creates nuisance and this unit has been established without getting any permission from the municipal corporation. He contended that the area is within the town area scheme. The industry established by the petitioner is health hazard as it is spreading pollution. He contended that when an industry is spreading pollution and it is injurious to health of the public, the same should be closed as right to health is a fundamental right. If any person violates the fundamental right, the court to protect the fundamental rights should interfere. He has supported the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. In support of his arguments he has relied upon Bhan Singh v. Mohinder Singh, 1997 3 RCR(Cri) 281, The Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, 1996 8 JT 387, Sri Srinivasa Theatre and others etc. v. Government of Tamil Nadu & others., 1992 AIR(SC) 999, Peoples Union for Democratic Rights & others v. Union of India and others, 1982 AIR(SC) 1473, Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa & others, 1991 AIR(SC) 1902, Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar & others, 1991 AIR(SC) 420, D.D. Vyas & others v. Ghaziabad Development & others, 1993 AIR(All) 57, Union of India and another v. Dharangadhra chemical Works & another, 1977 AIR(SC) 720, Consumer Education & Research Centre and others v. Union of India & others, 1995 AIR(SC) 922, Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. M/s Cotspun Ltd., 2000 AIR(SC) 197, A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) and others etc., 1999 AIR(SC) 812, State of Punjab & others v. Mohinder Singh Chawla etc., 1997 AIR(SC) 1225 I.K. Sukhija & others v. Union of India & others, 1997 AIR(SC) 2714.