A. K. SRIVASTAVA ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated l8. 6. 1992 passed by a Sub Divisional Magistrate in a matter relating to Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The impugned order is the final order under that section against M/s Bikano Angan (Bikanerwala), Shyam Sunder, Kishan Kumar and Ashok Kumar. The persons against whom the impugned order was passed did not file any revision against that order. It is the complainants who have filed this revision. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case as appear from the record may briefly be stated as follows: ( 3 ) SOME residents of gali No. 16, Karol Bagh, lodged a complaint against M/s Bikanerwala (Bikano Angan) in relation to premises 16/10181 -182, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi. In the complaint it was alleged that (1) the respondents have caused obstruction andnuisance in the service lane of Gali No. 16, Arya Samaj Road by discharging affluent gases including garbage in that lane from the said shop M/s Bikaner Wala; (2) the respondents have caused nuisance at Gali No. 16 by putting an exhaust fan in the service lane which besides causing unbearable noise also discharges obnoxious and unhygenic gas in the service lane; (3) the respondents have stored large number of gas cylinders near to the source of fire which apart from radiating immense heat also endanger the safety of the public of the area. ( 4 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid complaint a police report was sought for. The concerned Magistrate after taking into consideration the nature of complaints and the contents of the police report passed a conditional order on 16. 3. 92 against M/s Bikano Angan (Bikanerwala), Shyam Sunder, Krishan Kumar and Ashok Kumar. In that order the following was directed: "that you have caused obstruction and nuisance in the service lane of Gali No. 16 Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, which is used by the residents of the Gali No. 16, Karol Bagh as a passage by discharging the affluation including garbage and filth on the service lane from your shop M/s Bikaner Wala (Bikano Angan ). You have also caused nuisance to the general residents of Gali No. 16 by putting an exhaust fan in the service lane which besides causing unbearable noise also discharge obnoxious and unhygenic gases in the said service lane. You have also caused nuisance to the general residents of Gali No. 16 by putting an exhaust fan in the service lane which besides causing unbearable noise also discharge obnoxious and unhygenic gases in the said service lane. You have also stored large no of gas cylinders at a distance which is very near to the source of fire/oven/bhatties/stoves etc. which are used by you, which apart from radiating immense heat in the area also endanger the safety of the public of the area. 1, Krishan Kumar, Sub- Divisional-Magistrate (Patel Nagar, Civil Lines) do hereby direct and require you within 10 days to remove such garbage and filth from the service lane and not to put any dirty water or any Generator etc. in the lane and remove the said exhaust fan from the service lane by changing it on installing it at some other place and make arrangements for storage of gas cylinders at a safer place or to appear at the court of the under signed on 26/3/1992 at 10. 00 A. M. and to show cause why this order should not be enforced. " ( 5 ) ON receipt of this conditional order it appears that the respondents sought for inspection of the locality by the concerned Magistrate and the concerned Magistrate did make the inspection on 26. 3. 92. According to the inspection note the following was found:- "that the exhaust fan installed by the respondentts certainly causes the nuisance, smoke and other affulient gases which are discharged in the air by the chimni do cause nuisance to the residents of the area. However there was no garbage filth and other articles put by the M/s Bikanerwala (M/s Bikano Angan) in the service lane. I have also seen the place where the gas cylinders were stored. The gas cylinders were put properly. However the respondent is required to submit a safety certificate from the concerned oil Company as well as Delhi Fire Service. M/s Bikanerwala (M/s. Bikano Angan) is also required to give a certificate from D. E. S. U. that the installed capacity is enough to carry me load when all the machines put by the M/s Bikanerwala (M/s Bikano Angan) function simultaneously. The chimni has to be shifted to the alternative place as agreed by the landlord and the respondent. M/s Bikanerwala (M/s. Bikano Angan) is also required to give a certificate from D. E. S. U. that the installed capacity is enough to carry me load when all the machines put by the M/s Bikanerwala (M/s Bikano Angan) function simultaneously. The chimni has to be shifted to the alternative place as agreed by the landlord and the respondent. " ( 6 ) THEREAFTER a final order was passed by the concerned Magistrate on 18. 6. 92 which, in fact, is the impugned order. In that order the concerned Magistrate says that going through the record placed on the file and hearing the learned counsel for both the parties he came to the opinion that the respondents had complied with most of the directions in the conditional order as well as during the site inspection by submitting the necessary certificates. However, he found some more to be done and directed as follows: "1) the exhaust fan which is causing nuisance to the respondents of the area and discharge smoke and other affluent gases shall be removed; (2) the chimney should be shifted from the present location and installed in an alternate site as was agreed by the landlord Om Prakash during the site inspection and as per the plan submitted by the respondents (which was to be done within 30 days of the issue of the order); (3) height of the fresh ducting should be at the existing level; (4) new chimney should be raised so that it does not affect the neighbouring residents. " ( 7 ) FEELING aggrieved by the aforesaid order the complainants filed this revision and this Court admitted it to hearing. The complainants also moved a petition for stay on that very day. Notice was issued but meanwhile the operation of the impugned order dated 18. 6. 92 was directed to be suspended. That stay order is still continuing. The result is that whatever the respondents had to comply as per the impugned order for removing the nuisance is under stay and that nuisance is still continuing. Notice was issued but meanwhile the operation of the impugned order dated 18. 6. 92 was directed to be suspended. That stay order is still continuing. The result is that whatever the respondents had to comply as per the impugned order for removing the nuisance is under stay and that nuisance is still continuing. When this revision petition came up for hearing before me for the first time I asked the learned counsel for the revisionists as to what purpose the aforesaid stay order is serving the complainants because in my view the complainants were the sufferers by the stay order rather than the respondents But the learned counsel for the revisionists insisted that the stay should continue and should not be vacated. The respondents never asked for vacation of the stay order as it suited them and the learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, also did not make a request that stay order should be vacated. Any way the revision petition has been heard and that stay order will merg with this judgment and order. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the revisionists challenged the impugned order on grounds, inter alia, that the entire nuisance which was complained off is still continuing and the concerned Magistrate without hearing the complainants and without seeing the things on the spot passed the final order. According to him the respondents do not possess the required certificates from the Air Pollution Control Board and are acting in violation of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 1988 which relates to possession of LPG cylinders. It is further alleged that the respondents do not have certificate from Fire Service Authority or from the DESU regarding the safety. His contention is that the conditional order passed by me learned Magistrate vide order dated 16. 3. 92 has not at all been complied with by the respondents and the Magistrate without verifying the same on the spot has accepted that most of the directions have been complied with. The grievance of the revisionist is that when the Sub Divisional Magistrate made spot inspection notice of the same was not given to them. 3. 92 has not at all been complied with by the respondents and the Magistrate without verifying the same on the spot has accepted that most of the directions have been complied with. The grievance of the revisionist is that when the Sub Divisional Magistrate made spot inspection notice of the same was not given to them. Had they known in advance about the date and time of the local inspection by the Magistrate they would have been present on the spot to show that all acts of nuisance were still being committed by the respondents and the conditional order was not complied with. It is also complained that the respondents are still discharging filth and garbage in the said Gali. ( 9 ) THE contention of the respondents is that in case the revisionists have any cause of grievance they should approach the concerned Magistrate saying that the respondents have not complied with the orders of the Magistrate and they are still continuing with the nuisance complained of. ( 10 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and after going through the records of me case, it appears to me that in view of what has been said in the revision petition and urged during me course of arguments, it appears mat the entire matter needs a fresh look and the Magistrate has to be more specific in ascertaining whether the conditional order passed by him on 16. 3. 92 was complied with in entirety It is to be found in the impugned order mat the Magistrate says "the respondents have complied with most of me directions in the conditional order". The word "most" has not been elaborated. In my view, he should have given specific findings in the impugned order as to how the directions in me conditional order had been complied with and in case he had seen some certificates with the respondents, he should have mentioned those certificates in the impugned order, to make it clear that the respondents possessed all the necessary certificates from the Regulatory Authorities regarding pollution, safety of larger quantity of cylinders and storage of light diesel oil. The Magistrate had also to ascertain from the DESU whether there was no possibility of fire hazard due to any overloading of the electric connections. The Magistrate had also to ascertain from the DESU whether there was no possibility of fire hazard due to any overloading of the electric connections. It also appears that me conditional order did not reflect all the grievances of the residents of Gali No. 16 Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, which started the ball rolling in mis matter under Section 133 Cr. P. C. against the respondents. ( 11 ) IN this view of the matter, it would be appropriate that this revision be allowed and the impugned order be set aside with some directions to the concerned Magistrate. Accordingly the revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 18. 6. 92 is set aside and the following directions are given to the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate that (1 )he shall give a fresh look to the matter denovo right from the stage ofthe complaint lodged by the respondents of Gali No. 16 Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh; he may, at his discretion, take police report and also inspect the site; he shall peruse all the relevant certificates with the respondents relating to pollution, storage of large quantity of cylinders, storage of light diesel oil and fire safety. Copies of such certificates shall be obtained from the respondents and be placed on the record; (2) he may pass a conditional order if required. ( 12 ) IF a conditional order is passed, he shall inspect the site after intimating the date and time of the inspection to the revisionists and the respondents in advance so that they may not again say that they did not have an advance notice of the inspection and only thereafter he shall pass a final order