FAIZAN UDDIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed by Municipal Corporation, Durg, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the order dated 8-6-1987 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Criminal Revision No: 46 of 1987 affirming the order dated 29- 4-1987 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Durg, Slui J. K. Dubey, in Criminal Case No. 142 of 1987. ( 2 ) THE facts in brief leading to this petition are that the non-applicant No. 1 Shri Mahavir Grab Niman Samiti, Durg, is a registered Co-operative Society engaged in the construction of buildings and houses in Ward No. 34 in the city of Durg for its members. The Society had constructed about 70 houses in the year 1983 for its members. The Society had deposited the prescribed fee with the applicant/corporation on 22-12-1975. The non-applicant/society moved an application under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) before the learned Additional District Magistrate, Durg, for removal of nuisance etc. alleging that the Society had constructed 70 houses behind the District Office and deposited development charges with the applicant/ Corporation in accordance with Section 29 of the M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, but the Corporation has not made any arrangement for supply of drinking water, drainage and roads in the area nor the drains have been constructed and Kachchi and earthen drains arc not cleaned for proper flow of water without any distraction. There is no proper sewage which is causing pollution and emitting foul smell hazardous for human health. It has also been alleged that there is Usna Plant of Rice Mill, the dirty water of which constantly flows through the place near the Housing Colony causing unbearable obnoxious stench, polluting the whole atmosphere creating a very unhealthy situation for the inhabitants of the Colony. But the complaints to this effect made to the applicant/corporation fell on deaf ears and bore no fruits. The Housing Society, therefore, through its President moved an application under Section 133 of the Code of Appropriate Action. The applicant/corporation entered appearance and filed its reply raising preliminary objections that the grievances ventilated by the Housing Society do not fall within the purview of Section 133 of the Code and, therefore, the application under Section 133 of the Code was not competent. The applicant/corporation entered appearance and filed its reply raising preliminary objections that the grievances ventilated by the Housing Society do not fall within the purview of Section 133 of the Code and, therefore, the application under Section 133 of the Code was not competent. The learned Additional District Magistrate heard the parties arguments on the preliminary objections and overruled the same by order dated 29-4-87 holding that the application was tenable. The said order was further maintained in revision by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, wherein besides the preliminary objections raised before the learned Trial Magistrate, the applicant/corporation also advanced the contention that the learned Additional District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 133 of the Code. But, the learned Additional Sessions Judge overruled this objection also against which the petition under Section 482 of the Code for quashing both the orders passed by Courts below, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the Court, has been filed. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the applicant/corporation again reiterated the aforesaid contentions before this Court which were advanced before the Courts below. He urged that the application of the non-applicant/housing Society is not maintainable under Section 133 of the Code for redressal of grievances. But, on the examination of the provisions contained in Section 133 of the Code. I find that there is absolutely no force in the said submission. The relevant part of subsection (1) of Section 133 of the Code reads as follows: Section 133. Conditional Order for removal of nuisance. But, on the examination of the provisions contained in Section 133 of the Code. I find that there is absolutely no force in the said submission. The relevant part of subsection (1) of Section 133 of the Code reads as follows: Section 133. Conditional Order for removal of nuisance. (1) Whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government, on receiving the report of Police Officer or other information and on taking such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit, considers: (a) That any unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed from any public place or from any way, river or channel which is or may be lawfully used by the public; Such Magistrate may make a conditional order requiring the person causing such obstruction or nuisance, or carrying on such trade or occupation or keeping any such goods or merchandise, or owning, possessing or controlling such building, tent, structure, substance, tank, well or excavation, or owning or possessing such animal or tree, within the time to be fixed in the order (i to remove such obstruction or nuisance; Or, if he objects so to do, to appear before himself or some other Executive Magistrate subordinate to him at the time and place to be fixed by the order, and show cause in the manner hereinafter provided, why the order should not be made absolute. ( 4 ) A bare perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 133 of the Code reproduced above goes to show that the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate or sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government may be invoked in respect of any matters enumerated in Clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 133 of the Code and such Magistrate is empowered to act in accordance therewith on receiving the report of Police Officer or other information and on taking such evidence, if any, as he thinks, fit. Thus, the Magistrate is empowered to act under Section 133 of the Code on receiving the report of a Police Officer or through any other source relating to public nuisance and other matters falling within any of sub-clauses (a) to (f) of Section 133 (1) of the Code. Thus, the Magistrate is empowered to act under Section 133 of the Code on receiving the report of a Police Officer or through any other source relating to public nuisance and other matters falling within any of sub-clauses (a) to (f) of Section 133 (1) of the Code. The use of words other information includes the information received from an individual, a COlporate body or Society and the like. A municipality which is a public body and which is enjoined with a statutory duty cannot escape from observing these duties and functions to remove public nuisance when the fact proving the same are placed before the Magistrate who is competent to take action under Section 133 of the Code. In the present case, the information about the nuisance was laid before the learned Additional District Magistrate by the non-applicant No. 1 which is a registered Society, which would fall within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 133 of the Code. ( 5 ) IN the present case, the allegations are about the existence of nuisance to public facilities like drinking water, drainage and roads in the area, cleaning thereof to avoid stench, obnoxious and foul smell, pollution and unhealthy atmosphere and it also related to nuisance at the public place caused by constant flow of effluent and dirty water of the Rice Mill which is hazardous to public health as it flows from the place just near the residential houses of the members of Colony. The allegation is about the nuisance to the community at large and not to an individual. The Magistrate under Section 133 of the Code is also enjoined with a public duty towards the members of the Society who happen to be the victims of the nuisance and, therefore, whenever any information is laid before him disclosing the facts; about the existence of public nuisance within the meaning of Section 133 of the Code, the learned Magistrate would be within his jurisdiction to act in accordance with the provisions of Section 133 of the Code. ( 6 ) THE decision before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Council v. Vardichand1, is a hallmark on the subject wherein it was held that Section 133 of the Code is categoric, although discretionary. Judicial discretion when facts for its exercises are present, has a mandatory import. ( 6 ) THE decision before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Council v. Vardichand1, is a hallmark on the subject wherein it was held that Section 133 of the Code is categoric, although discretionary. Judicial discretion when facts for its exercises are present, has a mandatory import. The Magistrate before whom, information and facts which disclose the existence of a public nuisance are placed and 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 In the said report while interpreting Section 123 of the Municipalities Act, 1961, their Lordships observed that the Statutory setting being plain, the municipality cannot extricate itself from its responsibility. The public nuisance, because of pollutant being discharged by big factories to the detriment of poorer sections, is a challenge to the social justice component of the rule of law. Likewise, the grievous failure of local authorities to provide the basic amenity of public conveniences drives the miserable, slum-dwellers to ease in the streets on the sly for a time and openly thereafter, because under Natures pressure bashful ness because of luxury and dignity of a difficult art. A responsible municipal Council constituted for the precise purpose of preserving public health and providing better finances cannot run away from its principal duty by pleading financial inability. Thus, from the above discussion, it is clear that the grievances of existence of unhealthy atmosphere and public nuisance clearly fall within the four comers of the provisions contained is Section 133 of the Code and;, therefore, the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicant deserves to be rejected outright. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant! Corporation next contended that the learned Additional District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the complaint under Section 133 of the Code as he has not been specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government. It is true that according to the import of sub section (1) of Section 133 of the Code, District Magistrate can invoke the jurisdiction and the sub Divisional Magistrate or any Executive Magistrate can also invoke the jurisdiction if they are specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government and not otherwise. It is true that according to the import of sub section (1) of Section 133 of the Code, District Magistrate can invoke the jurisdiction and the sub Divisional Magistrate or any Executive Magistrate can also invoke the jurisdiction if they are specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government and not otherwise. In the present case, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Society produced before me a photostates copy of M. P. Gazatte, dated 2-1-1987, Part, I, Page. 41, containing the notification No. 2-14-86-8. Ekkis-Criminal Procedure Code, 1972, dated 2912-86, appointing Shri J. K. Dubey. Deputy Collector and Executive Magistrate, Durg, as Additional District Magistrate, Durg and specially empowering him to exercise those power as are exercised by a District Magistrate under Code. In view of the aforesaid notification, the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the additional District Magistrate Shri J. K. Dubey has not jurisdiction to try the complaint under Section 133 of the Code, is without any substance. ( 8 ) IN the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed. .