K. L. SHRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THIS application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short the Codet) is directed Mohanlal v. State of M. P. and ors against the revisional order dated 31. 8. 84 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur whereby the order passed under Sec. 133 of the Code by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mandsaur has been maintained. ( 2 ) CIRCUMSTANCES giving rise to the application are these. On the application filed by the non- applicant Ramchandra against the petitioner and others that the lime kilns run by them cause pollution and, therefore, be ordered to be closed, the learned S. D. M. , passed the order dated 9. 7. 84 under Section 133 of the Code. He thereby required the petitioner to close his kiln with immediate effect and in case he has objection, to appear and prefer the same before him on 19. 7. 84 and further to explain why the aforesaid order should not be made absolute. ( 3 ) SECTION 133 of the Code provides that whenever the S. D. M. considers that conduct of any trade or occupation is injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community and that in consequence, such trade or occupation should be prohibited or regulated, he may make a conditional order requiring the person carrying on such trade or occupation, within a time to be fixed in the order, to desist from carrying on or to remove or regulate in such manner as may be directed, such trade or occupation or if be objects to it, to appear at a time and place to be fixed by the order and show cause why the order should not be made absolute. ( 4 ) IT is urged by the petitioners learned counsel that it is clear from a plaint perusal of the provision embodied in Section 133 of the Code that it contemplates a conditional order to be carried out within a time to be fixed in the order and the order passed by the learned S. D. M. directing closer of the kiln with immediate effect is contrary to the letter and spirit of the aforesaid provision. ( 5 ) IT has further been urged by the petitioners learned counsel that section 133 of the Code has been brought on the Statute Book to provide a summary remedy for emergency cases and in the instant case the kiln in question has been in existence for the last 12 years and, therefore the provision embodied in Section 133 could not be invoked. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decision in T. K. S. M. Kalyanasundarams case. 1 ( 6 ) THE point for consideration if whether the application deserves to be allowed. ( 7 ) IN the II Schedule to tie Code there is Form No. 20 for the order for removal of nuisances as envisaged under Section 133 of the Code. The section contemplates grant of time to the person served with the conditional order. In the instant case no time has been allowed to the petitioner. ( 8 ) CHAPTER 10 of the Code-Sections 129 to 148 certain to maintenance of public order and tranquillity. Sections 133 to 143 relate to public nuisances as distinguished from private nuisances. Public nuisance is defined in Section 268 of the IPC. It is clear from a perusal of section 133 that in order to attract its applicability there must be an imminent danger to the health or the physical comfort of the community in the locality ill which the trade or occupation is conducted, Without such imminent danger, jurisdiction under this section cannot be exercised. The danger should be such that if the Magistrate does not take immediate action and directs the public to take ordinary recourse of law, irreparable damage would ensue. In conformity with the principle of natural justice regarding hearing before an adverse order, the section, at the initial stage, contemplates only a conditional order. ( 9 ) IN the decision in Suresh Prakashts case2 it has been pointed out that even a private person can bring the matter under Section 133 to the notice of the Magistrate lind then it is for the Magistrate to take proceedings or not and if he has started the proceedings the matter will be between the Magistrate on the one side on behalf of public at large and the person on the other side to whom notice was issued. The decision further points out that neither injunction nor pendency of suit bars the proceedings under section 133 nor the fact that dispute is of civil nature. ( 10 ) IN the decision in Shaukat Hussaints case3 it has been pointed out that where the action under this section is taken against a person holding a licence to carryon the trade, it cannot be said to be without jurisdiction though it is inexpedient to proceed there-under. Mention may also be made to the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 which has been drought on the Statute Book to deal with the problems arising from air pollution. ( 11 ) AS is clear from a perusal of paragraph 4 of the decision in T. K. S. M. Kalyansudarams case (supra) the conduct or the trade must be injurious in praesenti to the healthier comfort of the community. Action under this section is not to be, taken, where the obstruction or nuisance has been in existence for a long period unless there has been any change in the circumstances investing urgency in the matter. ( 12 ) IN the decision in Ratlam Municipality v. Vardichand4 following pertinent observations have been made touching the jurisdiction under Section 133 of the Code: S. 133 Cr. P. C. is categoric, although reads discretionary. Judicial discretion when facts for its exercise are present, has a mandatory import. Therefore, when the Magistrate, has before him, information and evidence, which disclose the existence of a public nuisance and, on the materials placed, he considers that such unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed from any public place which may be lawfully used by the public, he shall act. Thus, his judicial power shall, passing through the procedural barrel, fire upon the obstruction or nuisance, triggered by the jurisdictional facts. The Magistrates responsibility under S. 133 Cr. P. C. is to order removal of such nuisance within a time to be fixed in the order. This is a public duty implicit in the public power to be exercised on behalf of the public and pursuant to a public proceedings. Failure to comply with the direction win be vested with a punishment contemplated by S. 188 I. P. C. ( 13 ) IN the result, the application is allowed. The revisional order as well as the one passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mandsaur, are set aside. Failure to comply with the direction win be vested with a punishment contemplated by S. 188 I. P. C. ( 13 ) IN the result, the application is allowed. The revisional order as well as the one passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mandsaur, are set aside. The case is remanded to the learned S. D. M. for disposal in the light of the law discussed above. Record of the case be sent back immediately. Petition allowed. .