Judgment : 1. The petitioner/Salt Manufacturer applied for expansion of activities and they want further to produce salt from their own patta lands of 20 acres, which were earlier unutilized by them. When they sought for permission for expansion activities, the official of the Revenue Department objected to the same on the ground that it is likely to pollute the existing water sources and also in a neighbouring Survey No. 252/1/B1 inwhich a colony of Adi Dravidar is there and the water sources used by the colony, may be contaminated. The District Colletor, the first respondent herein has made several enquiries through his subordinates including the Tahsildar, District Revenue Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, the second respondent therein, who mad several reports to the Collector, who is also the District Magistrate, who finally issued an order dated 21.8.2006 stating that the petitioner company cannot carry out their activities in the expanded areas for which they were seeking permission. The Survey No. 252/1/B1 in which the new salt-pan is sought to be situated admittedly adjacent to Adi Dravidar Colony in Sitharkotta Village and there was also objections from the public. Therefore, the Collector has passed an order dated 21.8.2006, which is impugned in the writ petition stating that if the petitioner carries out the expansion activities, especially that is sought to be made by them due to the seepage of water, it may also get mixed with the canal used for irrigation purpose in an extent of 1,000 acres and it would become polluted land. It also makes a mention that drinking water used by the Adi Dravidar Colony may also get contaminated and environment is polluted. Therefore, the petitioners expansion activities should not be ordered and they were directed to stop their expansion activities. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to pass order of this nature especially when he is armed with the order of the Central Government. He also alternatively submits that while passing the impugned order, the Collector has not spelt out the power vested on him and consequently the petitioner has not given any notice. 3. He also alternatively submits that while passing the impugned order, the Collector has not spelt out the power vested on him and consequently the petitioner has not given any notice. 3. With reference to the first submission, it is stated that even though the petitioner, under the liberalisation scheme, need not have any licence and it requires registration as salt manufacturing unit is enough and there is no restriction for carrying on such activities in patta land. Therefore, the order passed by the Salt Factory Officer dated 29.7.2006 clearly states that the expansion plans were objected by the revenue department. Instead of going by the objection, the authorities of the salt department have merely granted it only in the name of liberalisation. 4 The learned counsel for the Central Government, who is appearing for the third and fourth respondents, who also takes notice and strongly supported the case of the writ petitioner. But however, the counsel appearing for the third and fourth respondents is unable to deal with the substantial objection raised by the local people and also the order passed by the Collector. It is not the petitioners right to carry on his business under his own patta land and there being no necessity to obtain any new licence, even in carrying out any business, the petitioner will have to satisfy the requirements, which are covering the field. Therefore, the petitioner does not have any right to decide on his own whatever he wants. 5 The attack made against the impugned order of the first respondent is clearly misconceived because the first respondent is not only the District Collector but also the District Magistrate, who is empowered under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to deal with a situation of this nature. Section 133(e) of Cr.P.C. clearly says that any tank, well or excavation adjacent to any such way or public place should be fenced in such manner as to prevent danger arising to the public; and also sub-section (f) that the very section intended to remove nuisance caused by any person and therefore, the Collector on being informed by subordinates is empowered under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. to pass appropriate orders. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that though the impugned order does not refer to any provision of law, is referable to Section 133 Cr.P.C. This Court entirely agrees with the said submission. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that though the impugned order does not refer to any provision of law, is referable to Section 133 Cr.P.C. This Court entirely agrees with the said submission. The power under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. which has to be exercised when there is an imminent danger, and it does not contemplate any prior enquiry and therefore there is no infirmity in the order passed by the District Collector. 6 However, if the petitioner has any materials to satisfy, or that the reasons found in the Collectors orders are not legal and there were no materials warranting such conclusion, the petitioner can always make representation to the District Collector. It is needless to say that the Collector will examine the objection raised by the Salt Manufacturer and pass appropriate orders which will also be in public interest only. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2006 is also dismissed. No costs.