Honble SAXENA, J. — Heard. Perused the record of the learned lower Courts. (2). The petitioner -company filed an application for grant of consent under sec.21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution ) Act, 1981 , hereinafter referred to as the Act to the Rajasthan State Water Pollution & Control Board, Jaipur (respondent No. 2), which was rejected vide letter dated 15.5.84 on the ground that the petitioner Co. had failed to submit the feasibility report and time bound programme for procuring stack monitoring equipments and arrangements of laboratory facilities as also the arrangements to be mads at the stack for monitoring and failure in submission of the detailed specification of the control equipments. The Chairman, Pollution Control Board subsequently being satisfied that certain measures were taken by the petitioner for having the E.S.P. installed at the kiln, advised the petitioner to file a fresh application for grant of provisional consent to undertake measures for control of air pollution vide his letter dated 24.08.1984 . Thereupon, the petitioner submitted an application dt. 11.9.84 u/s 21 of the Act praying for the provisional consent. The respondent by its letter dated 19.9.84 informed the petitioner that its earlier application for consent was rejected and the petitioner despite the directions to stop the operation of the kiln till proper consent was obtained from the Board, was still running the kiln, which constituted an offence u/ss.37 and 39 of the Act. The Chairman of the Board also endorsed a copy of the said letter to the Collector and requested him to take administrative action against the petitioner u/s. 133 Cr.P.C. for stopping functioning of the kiln on account of public nuisance and the grave danger being caused to the public health. The Collector sent a copy of the said letter to the S.D.M., Mount Abu , who by his order dated 19.11.84 issued a notice u/s.133 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner and also passed the conditional order for removal of the nuisance . (3). The petitioner filed preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the case u/s. 133 Cr. P.C. against it on the ground that after coming into force of the Act, the provisions of Chapter X and in particular section 133 Cr.P.C. automatically stood repealed. The learned S.D.M. vide his order dated 6.10.86 rejected the preliminary objection filed by the petitioner . (3). The petitioner filed preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the case u/s. 133 Cr. P.C. against it on the ground that after coming into force of the Act, the provisions of Chapter X and in particular section 133 Cr.P.C. automatically stood repealed. The learned S.D.M. vide his order dated 6.10.86 rejected the preliminary objection filed by the petitioner . Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi, who dismissed the same and directed the S.D.M. to expedite the proceedings. Petitioner has now filed this Misc. Petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing the proceedings initiated against him under sec. 133 Cr.P.C. and for setting aside the conditional order dt. 19.11.84. (4). This is an admitted position that the respondent Board later on gave provisional consent to the petitioner upto 30th July,1985 . Again by letter dated 5.7.86 the provisional consent valid upto 31.7.85 was extended upto 30.3.87 . (5). Mr. D.S. Shishodia, learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.2 has submitted that the petitioner company has now installed air pollution control equipments like Electrostatic Precipitators, bag house etc. for the control of emissions of air pollutants and that the Unit is operating under valid consent from the State Board as required under sec.21 of the Act. Mr. Shishodia has further submitted that the emissions being discharged by the unit from its plant are also within prescribed limits and that the analysis reports show the emissions of SPM 164 mg/nm 3 as against stipulated limit of 250 mg/nm 3. Mr. Shishodia has, therefore,submitted that in view of the above facts, the petition filed by the petitioner against the State Board has become infructuous. He also stated that in view of these facts, the alleged public nuisance committed by the petitioner Company now no more survives and, therefore, there is no justification in continuing the proceedings u/s. 133 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner. (6). The learned P.P. has asserted that the courts below have rightly held that simply by coming into force of the Act, the provisions of Chapter X and sec. 133 Cr.P.C. do not automatically stand repealed and that the proceedings initiated by the learned S.D.M. u/s.133 Cr.P.C against the petitioner Company were legally maintainable and justified. (7). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made before me. 133 Cr.P.C. do not automatically stand repealed and that the proceedings initiated by the learned S.D.M. u/s.133 Cr.P.C against the petitioner Company were legally maintainable and justified. (7). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made before me. The Act has been enacted to provide for the prevention, control and abatement of air pollution, for the establishment, with a view to earring out the aforesaid purposes , of Board, for conferring on and assigning to such Boards powers and functions relating thereto and for matters connected therewith. Moreover, certain decisions were taken in the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in June ,1972, in which India participated to take appropriate steps for the prevention of the natural resources of the earth which, among other things, include the preservation of the quality of air and control of air pollution. Hence this Act has also been enacted to implement the aforesaid decisions in so far as they relate to the preservation of the quality of air and control of air pollution. This Act has come into force w.e.f. 16.05.1981. Sec. 46 of the Act simply base the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an Appellate Authority constituted under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine. This bar of jurisdiction does not apply to criminal courts. Chapter X of the Cr.P.C. deals with the maintenance of public order and tranquility and public nuisance. (8). Section 133 Cr.P.C. empowers the Magistrates specified therein to make a conditional order for the removal of such nuisances in emergent cases. Ss. 268-294 IPC which relate to public nuisances under the Penal Code provide punishments for the commission of offences, while Chapter X of Cr.P.C. contains a procedure for speedy removal of the obstruction or the nuisance itself which is injurious to the public. When on disclosure of existence of a public nuisance from information and evidence the Magistrate considers that such unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed from any public place or regulated, he is empowered to initiate proceeding u/s. 133 Cr.P.C. and also to pass conditional order for removal or regulating such public nuisance within a time frame fixed by him. (9). (9). It is true that Chapter VI of the Act provides for penalties for failure to comply-with the provisions of S.21 (5) or S.22 or with orders or directions issued under the Act and for trial of such offences, the provisions of the Act shall apply being a Special Act and override provisions of I.P.C. But proceedings under Chapter X including S.133 Cr.P.C are merely preventive in nature relating to maintenance of public order and tranquility.Such preventive proceedings are, therefore, independent and separate proceedings which are not at all related with the trial of offences enumerated in the Act. (10). Therefore, in my considered opinion, the provisions of sec.133 Cr.P.C. do not stand automatically or impliedly repealed after the commencement of the Act. In such circumstances, the proceedings u/s.133 Cr.P.C. before the learned S.D.M. were not without jurisdiction or barred by the provisions of the Act. (11). However, in view of the specific submissions made by Mr. D.S. Shishodia, learned counsel for the respondent-Board , the alleged public nuisance has now come to an end long back because the petitioner has installed the requisite air pollution control equipments and the emissions being discharged by the petitioners Unit from its plant are also within prescribed limits. Therefore , the proceedings u/s.133 Cr.P.C. which were initiated against the petitioner-Company vide order dated 29.11.84 have now become infructuous and no substantial purpose will be served by its continuance. (12). Hence for the reasons mentioned above and to secure the ends of justice and to avoid abuse of process of court, the proceedings initiated u/s.133 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner company are hereby dropped as having become infructuous. With these observations, this Misc. Petition stands disposed -of accordingly..