V. V. BEDARKAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by a litigant who has been unsuccessful in getting the order under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for the alleged nuisance and whose revision before the Sessions Court also failed. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that adjoining to his house respondents Nos. 1 2 and 3 are running a mini oil mill which in local terms is called a Ghani run by electricity. It is the case of the petitioner that due to this Ghani there are vibrations and continuous nuisance to the members of his family which ultimately endanger his health. ( 3 ) INITIALLY the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate Limbdi who was in charge earlier granted ad interim injunction against the running of the said Ghani but later on after full hearing the succeeding Sub-Divisional Magistrate dismissed the application. The revision before the Sessions Court was also dismissed. The petitioner is present in Court in person and it is his contention that his house is in danger and therefore the Court should consider. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate considered that this being a dispute pertaining to a private person it would not be covered by the provisions of Section 133 of the Code. The learned Sessions Judge also came to that conclusion. ( 4 ) THE petitioner who is present in person in this Court has cited various rulings in his petition but he could not show any of them and I could not get from the citations as to what books he has referred to. ( 5 ) THE scheme of Section 133 of the Code pertains to removal of public nuisance. The dispute raised by the petitioner would be covered by Clause (b) of Section 133 of the Code which is to the following effect:133 (1) (b) that the conduct of any trade or occupation or the keeping of any goods or merchandise is injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community and that in consequence such trade or occupation should be prohibited or regulated or such goods or merchandise should be removed or the keeping thereof regulated. IN this clause (b) the words injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community are material. IN this clause (b) the words injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community are material. ( 6 ) IN Suresh Prakash v. Krishna Swarup 1976 Criminal Law Journal 462 it has been observed:no doubt Section 133 is meant for removing public and not private nuisance and no person has a right to agitate any matter as a private dispute under Section 133 by the can bring the matter to the notice of the Magistrate and then it is for the Magistrate to take proceedings under Section 133 or not and after he has started the proceedings the matter will be between the Magistrate on the one side on behalf of the public at large and the person on the other side to whom notice was issued. THAT was a case where the house in dilapidated condition was in occupation of a tenant and it was required to be demolished by the landlord and therefore as it caused public nuisance he made application to the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. ( 7 ) NOW the dispute in that is squarely covered by Clause (d) of Section 133 of the Code which reads:133 (1) (d) that any building tent or structure or any tree is in such a condition that it is likely to fall and thereby cause injury to persons living or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing by and that in consequence the removal repair or support of such building tent or structure or the removal or support of such tree is necessary. IN the case referred to above it was held that for such a dispute any single individual can move the Magistrate because this clause specifically refers to the fact that where a building or structure is in such a condition that it is likely to fall and thereby cause injury to persons living or carrying on business in the neighbourhood it would be covered only with nuisance of the type mentioned therein and not otherwise. The instant case is not of that type and therefore because the petitioner has come with a private dispute of nuisance attempting to bring it in the form of public nuisance under Section 133 of the Code the Courts below did not grant him relief. The instant case is not of that type and therefore because the petitioner has come with a private dispute of nuisance attempting to bring it in the form of public nuisance under Section 133 of the Code the Courts below did not grant him relief. The case of nuisance made out by the petitioner is against a trade or occupation for in-convenience to him alone referable to Clause (1) (b) and not to Clause (1) (d) of Section 133 of the Code. So he has no case under Section 133 of the Code. If the petitioner has any grievance or a right he can approach the Civil Court by getting an injunction and in case some damage is caused by the running of the mini oil mill to get compensation but he cannot get his grievance redressed under Clause (b) of Section 133 (1) of the Code because it is not a public nuisance. ( 8 ) I therefore hold that the conclusions arrived at by the Courts below 2 are justified and therefore this petition is summarily rejected. Petition summarily rejected. .