ORDER 20.06.2016The petitioner herein challenges the order dated 10.03.2016 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-Cum- Executive Magistrate, Cuttack in Criminal Misc. Case No. 104 of 2015, a proceeding initiated under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”), directing the petitioner to shift his fabrication unit/ workshop under the trade name “Routray & Routhray” established and run over Hal Plot No. 456/1966 in Khata No. 650/580 at Aparna Nagar (Ananda Vihar) within a local limit of Chauliaganj Police Station, Cuttack from its existing location to the outside of the prime residential area. 2.A perusal of the record would reveal that the proceeding aforesaid was initiated by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-Cum-Executive Magistrate, Cuttack pursuant to a petition filed by the present opposite party nos. 1 to 4 (first party members_ alleging, inter-alia, that the continuance of the fabrication unit was causing public nuisance inasmuch as the sound pollution and air pollution created thereby was resulting in health hazards and mental trauma to the inhabitants of the locality. On being notice, the petitioner entered appearance in the proceeding and filed his show-cause repudiating the allegation of the opposite party nos. 1 to 4 on the grounds, inter-alia, that he was running the workshop which was a Cottage Industry since the year 2000 on being duly permitted by the District Industries Centre, Cuttack and also on obtaining “No Objection Certificate” from the Municipal Corporation. According to him, the workshop runs from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. with lunch break and that the trade was being carried out by him without any detriment to public much less creating any ;air or sound pollution. The further defence plea taken by him is that there was never any complain from the local public and that the present opposite party nos. 1 to 4, who cannot be construed as ‘public’, have brought false allegation of “Public nuisance” out of their personal grudge. 3.The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-Cum-Executive Magistrate, Cuttack in course of the enquiry recorded evidence from the rival sides and on considering the materials so produced coupled with those collected during enquiry arrived at a finding that operation of the fabricated unit by the present petitioner was resulting in noise pollution causing annoyance, disturbances and discomfort to the first party members (opposite party nos. 1 to 4 herein) who are residing in the vicinity of the said unit. Ultimately, the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-cum-Executive Magistrate, Cuttack has passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to shift the fabrication unit to some other place beyond the prima residential area. Hence, this revision petition questioning the legality and propriety of the said order. 4.I have gone through the materials on record vis-à-vis the impugned order and heard the learned counsel for both the sides. 5.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workshop being a Cottage Industry can be run in a residential area, with due permission from the appropriate authorities. He would further submit that it is factually incorrect to say that the operation of the workshop created any hazard to the local inhabitants inasmuch as while the first party members who brought the allegations, are only four in number, a good number of inhabitants of the locality have come in support of the petitioner denying the alleged nuisance or inconvenience. His ultimate argument is that the learned Additional Deputy ;Commissioner of Police-cum-Executive Magistrate, Cuttack failed to appreciate the facts and evidence in right perspective and committed gross error in issuing the direction for shifting of the workshop, to the prejudice of the petitioner. 6.The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos. 1 to 4, however, supports the impugned order on the ground of the same being based upon due consideration of the available materials on record. 7.“Public nuisance” is defined under Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code as follows:- “268. Public nuisance. – A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common ;injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right. A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage.” It thus appears that for constituting “public nuisance”, an illegal omission is not sine-qua-non. A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage.” It thus appears that for constituting “public nuisance”, an illegal omission is not sine-qua-non. To put it in other words, any act though not tantamount to an illegal omission, but if capable of causing any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public at large or even to the people dwelling or holding any property in the vicinity, will come within the definition of “public nuisance”. “Public nuisance” as offence is punishable under Chapter-XIV of I.P.C., whereas the Executive Magistrate is conferred with power to prevent commission of the said offence as per the provisions under Chapter-X of Cr.P.C. Now reverting to the present case, there is no denying from the side of the petitioner that the workshop is situated in a residential area, and the opposite party nos.1 to 4 are residing in its vicinity. In course of enquiry, the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-cum- Executive Magistrate, Cuttack has taken into consideration, inter-alia, the reports furnished by the State Pollution Control Board and local police. As it appears, the Police Officer-P.W.6 vide his report dated 25.02.2015 has mentioned that the operation of the Industry was creating “Public nuisance” by causing inconvenience to the normal life of the local inhabitants. The Asst. Environment Engineer appears to have conducted inspection in the workshop on 27.02.2012 and vide his report dated 05.04.2012 he observed that the cutting, hammering, drilling and spray and painting activities carried on in the workshop created noise hampering the sanctity of the residential area, and the operation of the said unit in the close proximity of the residential area was undesirable. The Regional Officer of the State Pollution Control Board while forwarding the aforesaid inspection report to the Collector, Cuttack suggested for taking appropriate action in order to obviate “public nuisance” in the area. As it further appears, the Deputy Environment Scientist of the State Pollution Control Board pursuant to a public complaint inspected the workshop on 18.02.02015 and observed, inter-alia, that the manufacturing process carried on in the workshop included cutting, drilling, hammering, welding and painting of steel structures, and operation of such a unit is detrimental to the convenience of the local inhabitants in leading normal life, inasmuch as the workshop is located in a prime residential area. It would further reveals from the letter dated 14.01.2016 addressed by the Deputy Commissioner, Cuttack Municipal Corporation to the present petitioner that the trade licence for the fabrication unit in question that was previously issued by the Municipal Corporation has not been renewed since the year 2013 due to complain received from the local public that the trade carried on by the petitioner caused nuisance. 8.Having regard to the materials aforesaid besides the oral evidence produced during the enquiry, this Court finds no patent illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police-cum-Executive Magistrate, Cuttack directing for shifting of the fabrication unit to a place beyond the residential area for the purpose of preventing “public nuisance”. The revision petition is, therefore, found to be bereft of any merit. 9.In the result, this revision petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. L.C.R. received be sent back frothwith along with a copy of this order. Petition dismissed.