MOHAMMAD AHSAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- This writ petition is restored today and heard finally on merits.

(2.) The petitioner is running a workshop in the name and style of M/s. Ahesan Engineering Works, Jodhpur near Jawahar Khana, inside Sojati Gate, Jodhpur, which is thickly populated area of Jodhpur. The petitioner applied for no-objection certificate which was granted by an order dated 25-6-1964 passed by the then Revenue Officer of Municipal Council, Jodhpur. The petitioner was also registered under the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act vide certificate dated 10-8-1964. It is also registered with the Department of Industries and Supply for Small Scale Industry in 1972. According to the petitioner the people of Jawahar Khana, where the petitioner is carrying on his business, were running brothel for which the petitioner lodged complaint to the local administration time and again. Not only that he also filed writ petition No. 442/90 with the prayer that District Administration may be directed to stop that brothel business and to implement the provision of Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956, which is replaced by the Prostitution Prevention Act, 1986. The said petition was dismissed as stated at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself. However, Mr. Sharma states that because of his petition the administration took steps and stopped the brothel houses running by the people of Jawahar Khana area. It is the case of the petitioner that because of this the people of Jawahar Khana got annoyed with him and lodged false complaint against him for running the business of gas and electric welding and thereby causing noise pollution which is required to be stopped immediately. Interim order was passed by the Addl. District Magistrate, Jodhpur on that complaint on 19-4-1989 calling upon the petitioner to show cause within 10 days as to why the order should not be made absolute against him of closing down his unit. The said order was passed under Section 133, Cr. P.C.

(3.) The petitioner submitted his reply and pointed out that the workshop was run by him in his private premises and he was not causing nuisance or obstruction on a public road and the ingredients of Section 133, Cr. P.C. are not at all attracted in the case. According to the petitioner, the witnesses of the complainant were not present on 22-2-1990 and the Addl. District Magistrate was also on leave and next date was not intimated to the petitioner. However, the matter was taken up on 24-3-1990 without informing the petitioner and on that day the counsel for the petitioner was at Delhi, therefore, he could not remain present. It is also alleged that Addl. District Magistrate that in connivance with the complainant side the evidence of the witnesses who were present on that day were recorded and the matter was posted on 26-3-1990 for arguments. On 26-3-1990 without giving an opportunity to the petitioner or to his counsel the arguments were heard and ex parte order was passed by the respondent No. 2 directing the petitioner to remove his work shop within ten days from the passing of the order, failing which proceedings will be initiated against him under Section 188, IPC. The said impugned order at Annex. 6 is challenged by the petitioner by way of this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.