DILIP KUMAR BASU, J. ( 1 ) A Coconut Tree, some times, becomes source of living of a citizen, but, it sometimes, becomes a subject matter of protracted litigation. Instant writ application is a dispute on a coconut tree and petitioner has come to this Writ Court challenging inaction of South Dam Dam Municipality i. e. respondents 2 and 3 under Ss. 449 (2) (b), 452, 453, 454 and 455 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, though apparently this petition is directed against the respondents 2 and 3 but for all practical purposes, petitioner is aggrieved against respondents 6 and 7, refusing to remove a coconut tree which was allowed to grow in the lands of respondents 6 and 7 but adjacent to petitioner's boundary walls, causing damage to the building of the petitioner, particularly walls of chilekotha, due to constant dashing by the said coconut tree, endangering life and properties of the neighbours and passers-by members of public. ( 2 ) PETITIONER's contention is that the coconut tree is likely to fall at any moment causing damage to the property and loss of lives to the members of the public and also to the members of the petitioner's family. Petitioner requested respondents 6 and 7 to remove and/or to cut the said tree so that it could not hit petitioner's building causing damage thereon but no steps were taken at the instance of respondents 6 and 7. Petitioner was compelled to approach the local municipality i. e. respondents 2 and 3 and respondents 2 and 3 causing an inspection of the said premises and directed the respondents 6 and 7 to cut down the said tree withins days from the receipt of the said notice. Respondents 6 and 7 did not comply with the notice dtd. 7th Oct. , 1982, issued by the said Municipality and again on, 7th Dec. , 1982, respondents 2 and 3 served a notice directing respondents 6 and 7 to remove the said coconut tree. As the respondents 6 and 7 did not oblige Municipal Authorities, petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 180/- as charge for removing the said tree and accordingly, the petitioner deposited the said amount on 7th April, 1983, with the Municipality. As the respondents 6 and 7 did not oblige Municipal Authorities, petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 180/- as charge for removing the said tree and accordingly, the petitioner deposited the said amount on 7th April, 1983, with the Municipality. On 8th April, 1983, Municipality Authority went to the premises to cut down the said coconut tree from the top so that it cannot hit the building of the petitioner but due to resistance from respondents 6 and 7, Municipal Authority could not remove the said coconut tree. On 30th April, 1983 Municipality asked for Police help to the Officer in charge, Lake town Police Station for cutting down the said tree. On 4th May, 1983 at 10 a. m. , the Municipal Authorities and the Police Officers were resisted by the respondents 6 and 7. On 4th May, 1983 respondent 7 filed art application under S. 144 of the Cr. P. C. before the Executive Magistrate, Barrackpore, alleging the possibility of breach of peace in the area and the case was registered as MP Case No. 381 of 1983 and ultimately on 4th July, 1983. Police Authorities submitted a report before the learned Executive Magistrate, and considering the report the said case was filed by an order dt. 5th April, 1984. On 16th/17th April, 1984, Municipal Authorities again sent their Officers to cut down the said coconut tree (sic) by the respondents 6 and 7 and ultimately municipality became helpless and could not remove the coconut tree though Municipality was satisfied from the Inspectors' report that the coconut tree, standing within the premises of 6 and 7, should be removed in order to save life and property of the adjoining inhabitants and members of the public but the Municipal Authorities refused to take any further steps and requested the petitioner. to seek Court's help. Petitioner has thus come before this Court challenging order of the Chairman dt. February 7, 1986 in which petitioner was denied adequate relief by the Municipality. ( 3 ) APPEARING on behalf of the respondents 6 and 7, Mr. Dirghangi has admitted that the statement and/or allegations as regards factum of the existence of a coconut tree cannot be disputed. It has been contended that the coconut tree, belonging to respondent 6 within his house, is not adjacent to petitioner's boundary wall but is at a distance of 2- ft. Dirghangi has admitted that the statement and/or allegations as regards factum of the existence of a coconut tree cannot be disputed. It has been contended that the coconut tree, belonging to respondent 6 within his house, is not adjacent to petitioner's boundary wall but is at a distance of 2- ft. off from the base of the petitioner's boundary wall. Though the learned advocate Mr. Dirghangi has denied the allegation that the said coconut tree has been causing damage to the petitioner's building, particularly the chilekotha, due to constant dashing by the said coconut tree with the wind blowing but it has been admitted by the respondent 6, in para 9 categorically, inter alia, "i say that the said coconut tree is occasionally brought into contact when violent storm occurs", and obviously with the building of the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents 6 and 7 it has been indicated and contended that Writ Court is not the proper forum to adjudicate upon, the private right of the parties and Writ Court cannot enter in disputed question of facts. It has also been contended on behalf of the respondents 6 and 7 that Writ Court cannot grant relief where the Executive Magistrate has not proceeded to do so under S. 133 of the Cr. P. C. , 1973. ( 4 ) MR. Dirghangi has also contended that the instant dispute is a dispute between two neighbours and if there is any private nuisance, caused at the instance of the opposite parties 6 and 7, the only remedy is a civil suit, for proper adjudication of the dispute. In support of his contention Mr. Dirghangi has cited a bench decision reported in (1965) 69 Cal WN 674. Commr. of Calcutta Corpn. v. Prafulla K. Sarkar, in which a dispute between the landlord and the tenant was subject matter of adjudication. In the said decision tenant made an allegation that the land lady in connivance with the Executive Engineer, Water Works, Calcutta and other officials of corporation discontinued the supply of filtered water to the flat of the tenant and thereafter removed the motor driving pump from the premises in question. In the said decision tenant made an allegation that the land lady in connivance with the Executive Engineer, Water Works, Calcutta and other officials of corporation discontinued the supply of filtered water to the flat of the tenant and thereafter removed the motor driving pump from the premises in question. It was alleged that discontinuance of the water supply amounted to a nuisance within the meaning of S. 5, sub-section 50 of the Calcutta Municipal Act and tenant therefore prayed for an order under Section 583 of the Calcutta Municipal Act (Act XXXIII of 1951) directing restoration of supply of filtered water to the complainants of flat through motor pump. The learned Magistrate directed the opposite parties, in view of the urgency of the matter to restore supply of filtered water to the flat of the petitioner at the top floor of the premises by electric pump immediately Learned Magistrate considering a report of the Corporation Inspector found that discontinuance of water supply was a nuisance within the meaning of S. 5 (50) of the Act and also within the meaning of Section 550 read with Section 583 of the said Act and accordingly Executive Magistrate made an order directing restoration of water supply by electric motor pump. In that decision, following, (1911) 15 Cal WN 316, Khagendra Nath Mitter v. Bhupendera Nath Dutta which was also relied by Mr. Dirghangi, definition of nuisance in S. 3, Cl. 29 of Calcutta Municipal Act was interpreted and it was held that the definition is wider than the common law definition of public nuisance but does not certainly extend to certain private nuisances. It then proceeded to explain that a public nuisance is one that affects the members of the public at large or a considerable portion of them while a private nuisance, on the other hand, is one that affects only one person or a certain determinate number of persons and is only amenable to civil law. The Bench further held that nuisance, under the Calcutta Municipal Act, is in the nature of a public nuisance but it may affect the fives and property of private individuals or defined bodies of persons in a specified area. Relying on the bench decision Mr. The Bench further held that nuisance, under the Calcutta Municipal Act, is in the nature of a public nuisance but it may affect the fives and property of private individuals or defined bodies of persons in a specified area. Relying on the bench decision Mr. Dirghangi tried to impress upon this Court that the dispute between petitioner and respondents 6 and 7 is purely a private dispute and it does not create any public nuisance and therefore petitioner has got his remedy before the civil jurisdiction. This decision referred by Mr. Dirghangi is not applicable so far as present dispute is concerned, inasmuch as, petitioner has annexed two reports in connection with the M. P. Case No. 881/83 submitted to the Executive Magistrate, Barrackpur by the local Police Officer on 4-7-83 and another report filed before the Executive Magistrate, Barrackpore in M. P. Case No. 389/85 on 6-4-85 and in both the reports, apprehension of life and property of the members of the public was indicated and thereafter, though the root of the disputed coconut tree is within the premises of respondents 6 and 7, from the reports as above and also from notice dated 7th Oct. , 1982, issued by respondent 2, it transpires that the upper portion of the coconut tree has badly protruded inside the boundary line of the petitioners premises causing damage to his boundary wall and created a constant apprehension of damage of life and property of the petitioner as well as neighbours and members of the public. ( 5 ) IN the affidavit in opposition, the respondents 6 and 7 have stated in para 20, inter alia, "i say that the respondents 6 and 7 were within our right to obstruct/resist the men of the Municipality from cutting down the said coconut tree because they were not armed with an order of the Court". Identical averments were made by the respondents 6 and 7 in para 15 also. Respondents 6 and 7 are very much conscious of their rights and more particularly their civil rights. Respondents in the affidavit in opposition never disclosed the necessity of keeping the coconut tree which has caused a nuisance not only to the petitioner but also to the neighbours and members of the public. This is evident, from the photographs that were annexed to writ petition. Respondents in the affidavit in opposition never disclosed the necessity of keeping the coconut tree which has caused a nuisance not only to the petitioner but also to the neighbours and members of the public. This is evident, from the photographs that were annexed to writ petition. From the correspondence it appears that the dispute was started in the year 1982 and since then the said coconut tree has become a subject matter of litigation in the Court of Executive Magistrate and also before the Municipal Authorities culminating to instant writ petition. Respondents 6 and 7 have successfully resisted the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. This is a kind of resistance on the part of the respondents 6 and 7 who have a stake in the perpetuation of their whim, caprice and obstinacy, disregarding requirement of the community and necessity of living harmoniously with the neighbours. ( 6 ) RESPONDENTS 6 and 7, in their affidavit- in-opposition, have indicated their civil rights but they did not think of their obligation to the neighbours and also to the society. Mr. Dirghangi has tried to impress upon this Court that writ Court has no jurisdiction in adjudicating a civil dispute between the private parties. True, this may be a bare proposition but if the dispute between the private parties ultimately affects the rights and privileges of neighbours and members of the public, it should be deemed to be a public nuisance caused by a private citizen where provisions of Bengal Municipal Act cannot be allowed to be a nugatory. If an action of a citizen is detrimental to the interest of the members of the public and if a public body, like a Municipality i. e. respondents 2 and 3 extends its arms to remove the grievances of the members of the public the Municipality is very much within its competence and if, the public body refuses to take steps in accordance with law to remove the grievances of a citizen, a citizen obviously can invoke jurisdiction of writ Court for appropriate relief. ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the instant dispute and the manner in which the respondents 6 and 7 have been successful in resisting the petitioner for about 7 years through Courts process and thus avoided the request of the petitioner as also order of the respondents 2 and 3 for removing the coconut tree, I do not feel inclined to enter into the legal niceties for deciding other academic question of the competence of the writ Court in case of private disputes. If this Court refuses to interfere in the instant writ petition and accepts contention of Mr. Dirghangi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 6 and 7, it will amount to according concession to a citizen to satisfy his whim and vanity and simultaneously, denying a citizen from establishing his legal, rights to enjoy and to live in the society without any apprehension of his life and property. According to me it is not an ordinary dispute between two citizens, it is an invasion of legal rights of a citizen and also members of public who are likely to be prejudiced. ( 8 ) I do not think that the officer of the public body like respondents 2 and 3 had done anything wrong in directing respondents 6 and 7 to remove the said coconut tree, inasmuch as, according to the respondents 2 and 3, the said coconut tree, if allowed to remain in the said premises would damage not only building of the petitioner but also may endanger the safety and security of the petitioners family, passers-by and other members of the public. ( 9 ) I am satisfied with the photographs and also the factum of peculiar position of the coconut tree and accordingly this Court should not hesitate to give proper and effective remedy to a citizen. I think that the contention of Mr. Dirghangi, learned advocate on behalf of the respondents 6 and 7 that the writ Court should not interfere in a dispute between the private parties, it not convincing inasmuch as respondents 6 and 7, by their action or inaction, have created a nuisance which would create not only hazards to the petitioner but also safety and security of the members of the public and as such, inaction of respondents 2 and 3 may be a subject of consideration of the writ Court. Respondents 2 and 3 could have taken steps as contemplated in S. 453 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 but that steps would have been an idle formality in view of the order passed on 13-8-85 by the learned Executive Magistrate, Barrackpore, in case No. MP 389/85 between the private parties under S. 133 (d) of the Cr. P. C. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY I direct the respondents 2 and 3 to remove the coconut tree from the premises of respondents 6 and 7 within a week from the date. Respondent 5 Officer-incharge, Lake Town, Police Station is directed to extend all assistance to respondents 2 and 3 i. e. South Dam Dum Municipality, Respondent 5 Officer-in-Charge, Lake Town Police Station is also directed to take necessary steps against respondents 6 and 7 and their associates, if respondents 2 and 3 are prevented and obstructed in any manner whatsoever in complying this Court's order as above. Respondents 2 and 3 are given liberty to recover the cost of such removal from respondents 6 and 7 and on realisation, petitioner is entitled to get refund from the respondents 2 and 3 the amount so deposited with the Municipality on 7th April 1985. ( 11 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of this case, respondents 6 and 7 are directed to pay cost of this proceeding to the petitioner and to the Municipality, which I assess 30 Gms. each within two weeks from date and a compliance report to be filed within three weeks from date. In default, liberty to mention. The application is thus disposed of. ( 12 ) PETITIONER is given liberty to obtain certified copy of the order within a week from the date of the depositing requisites with the department and department is directed to take necessary steps expeditiously for issuing certified copy. Stay of the operation of the order, as prayed for, is refused. Order accordingly.