Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1045 (RAJ)

Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2014-04-29

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition under section 37 read with section 401 CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 25.07.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sumerpur, District Pali (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in Criminal Revision No.25/2012, whereby the revision petition filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 has been allowed and the revisional court has set aside the order dated 0.07.2012 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Sumerpur, District Pali (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Cr.Case No.10/2010. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner along with three other persons has filed a complaint against the Municipal Board, Sumerpur (for short 'the Municipal Board' hereinafter) under section 133 CrPC before the trial court with the averment that there exists a lane adjoining to the main market in town Sumerpur and the same is a business street, which leads to Vishvakarma Dharmshala. It is further contended that in the said street, the house of sitting Member of Municipal Board is situated and the said Member for her convenience and for the inconvenience of other residents made an attempt to obstruct the street by installing iron pillars resulted in narrowing down the road. It is further contended that on 18.08.2010 at about 11:00 A.M. the employees of the Municipal Board came to place iron pillars, however inhabitants of the street have resisted but the Municipal Board has obstructed the road by placing iron pillars. 3. Before the trial court, the respondent Nos.3 to 6 filed an application for being impleaded as party but the same was rejected vide order dated 24.0.2010. However, in a revision petition preferred on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 6, the revisional court vide order dated 18.11.2010, directed the trial court to implead the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 as party and also directed to decide the proceedings under section 133 CrPC after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties. 4. The trial court called for the report from the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sumerpur and after receiving the same, recorded the evidence of the parties and vide order dated 0.07.2012, allowed the application filed on behalf of the petitioner and other persons and directed to remove the obstructions placed on the public way. 5. 4. The trial court called for the report from the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sumerpur and after receiving the same, recorded the evidence of the parties and vide order dated 0.07.2012, allowed the application filed on behalf of the petitioner and other persons and directed to remove the obstructions placed on the public way. 5. Being aggrieved with the order dated 0.07.2012 passed by the trial court, the respondent Nos.3 to 6 preferred a revision petition, which is allowed by the revisional court vide order dated 25.07.2013 and the order dated 0.07.2012 passed by the trial court has been set aside. 6. Being aggrieved with the order dated 25.07.2013, the petitioner has preferred this criminal revision petition. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds raised in the revision petition, has argued that obstruction on the public way was placed at the instance of the Ward Member of the Municipal Board for political reasons and the trial court, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the police report submitted by the S.H.O., Police Station, Sumerpur, has passed a reasoned order and rightly directed to remove the obstructions raised on the public way, however, the revisional court, without taking into consideration the factual position, has illegally allowed the revision petition and set aside the order passed by the trial court. It is contended that there is no complaint on behalf of any of the residents but the trial court altogether ignored this aspect of the matter and passed the impugned order. 8. Per contra, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 as well as the Municipal Board have strenuously contended that the petitioner and other persons, who had filed the application under section 133 CrPC before the trial court, are the businessmen and their godown's are situated in the street in question, wherein the traffic is blocked on account of frequent movement of heavy vehicles brought into the street at the instance of the petitioner and other businessmen to unload the material, and looking to the inconvenience caused to the public at large, the Municipal Board has rightly placed the iron pillars on the entry of the street to block the movement of heavy vehicles in the street. It is also contended that since 2007, the general public has time and again moved representations before the Municipal Board for blocking the movement of the heavy vehicles in the street and, therefore, the Municipal Board, while exercising powers conferred by sections 252 and 253 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 200 (for short 'the Act of 200' hereinafter) has placed the iron pillars for blocking the movement of the heavy vehicles and the said action of the Municipal Board is perfectly in accordance with law. It is also contended on behalf of the respondents that it is wrong to contend that the iron pillars were placed by the Municipal Board on the entry of the street in question at the instance of one of the Ward Members of the Municipal Board and in fact, the Municipal Board has placed the iron pillars as per the demand of the residents of the street in question with intention to block the entry of heavy vehicles in the street in question. 9. Heard learned counsels for the rival parties and perused the impugned order as well as the order passed by the trial court and carefully scanned through the record of the case. 10. From the record, it is clear that in support of the complaint under section 133 CrPC, the petitioner and other persons, who are admittedly having their shops and godown's in the street in question, have recorded their statements. On the other hand, the statements of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 have been recorded, wherein they have claimed that their residential houses are situated in the street in question and on account of movement of heavy vehicles towards the godown's and shops situated in the street, they are facing great hardship as the public way is obstructed from time to time. It is specifically stated by the respondent Nos.3 to 6 in their statements that iron pillars were placed by the Municipal Board as per the demand of the residents of the street in question and it is wrong to say that the same has been placed on account of political pressure or at the instance of one of the Members of the Municipal Board only. 11. 11. Sections 252 and 253 of the Act of 200 empower the Municipality to prohibit use of public street for certain kind of traffic or for regulating of parking of private vehicles on the public places. When there is persistent demand to restrict the flow of heavy vehicles in a street, it is the duty of the Municipal Board to consider the said demand and to take appropriate action on it. The trial court has passed the impugned order, while taking into consideration only one fact that in the street in question apart from the residential houses, some commercial establishments are also there and in none of the other streets of Sumerpur town, such iron pillars have been placed. The trial court has not taken into consideration the fact whether the iron pillars placed by the Municipal Board, while exercising the powers conferred by sections 252 and 253 of the Act of 200, can be termed as public nuisance. The revisional court has rightly observed that there is no dispute about the fact that the street in question is a public street and while deciding any dispute regarding the nuisance, the Court has to keep in mind the public cause and not the personal causes. The learned revisional court has rightly held that the order dated 0.07.2012 has been passed by the trial court after taking into consideration only the interest of the commercial establishments while overlooking the public cause. 12. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 25.07.2013 passed by the revisional court. Hence, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 13. Stay petition also stands dismissed.Records of the courts below be sent forthwith.Petition dismissed. *******