# M/S A.T.R. Works v. City Magistrate, & others

- **Citation:** (1999) 2 ILRA 175
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1999
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-a-t-r-works-v-city-magistrate-others-39315
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
175
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7('$//$+$%$'
'$7('$//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( %,12' .80$5 52< -
7+( +21·%/( %,12' .80$5 52< -
7+( +21·%/( 5$0 .,6+
7+( +21·%/( 5$0 .,6+25( 6,1*+ -
25( 6,1*+ -

&,9,/ 0,6& :5,7 3(7,7,21 12 2)

0V $QLWD 7\UH 5HWUHDGLQJ ZRUNV
« 3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
7KH &LW\ 0DJLVWUDWH 0X]DIIDUQDJDU RWKHUV « 5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
 6UL 5DYL .DQW
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQW
 6&

$LU 3UHYHQWLRQ DQG &RQWURO RI 3ROOXWLRQ $FW 6 ,W GHDOV
ZLWK WDNLQJ RI WKH FRJQL]DQFH RI WKH RIIHQFHV PHQWLRQHG LQ WKH
DIRUHPHQWLRQHG $FW ,W KDV QR EHDULQJ LQ UHJDUG WR D 3XEOLF
1XLVDQFH FUHDWHG XQGHU 6HFWLRQ &U3&

By the Court

The petitioner assails an order passed by the City Magistrate,
Muzaffarnagar in Case No. 1/11 of 1988, under section 133 I.P.C.,
P.S. Nai Mandi, District Muzaffarnagar (as contained in Annexure12) overruling its objection that he has no jurisdiction to decide the
proceedings. In doing so the learned magistrate has placed reliance
on a judgment/order dated 2.3.1987 of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3028 of 1986 Messers Nagar
Juna Paper MillsLimited Vs.Sub Divisional Magistrate and others.

2.
Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner, contended that Sri Shyam Singh Yadav, City
Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar who has passed the impugned order
lacked jurisdiction to pass it inasmuch as he was not vested with any
powers under section 43 of the Air(Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981 and that at any rate the powers having been
conferred on a Judicial Magistrate under section 133 Cr.P.C. he lack
authority to decide the proceeding.

3.
Sri Sudhir Jaiswal, learned Standing Counsel resutted the
submissions on behalf of the respondents.

1999
------
January, 12.
THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
176
4.
In our view both submissions of Mr. Srivastava are thoroughly
misconceived.

4.1.
Section 43 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1981 deals with the cognizance of the offences mentioned in the
aforementioned Act. It has no bearing in regard to a Public Nuisance
created under Section 133 Cr.P.C
.
4.2.
On a bare perusal of Section 133 Cr.P.C. it appears that the
District Magistrate, Sub Divisional Magistrate or any Executive
Magistrate who has been specially empowered by the State, and not
a Judicial Magistrate, can pass a conditional order for removal of
Public Nuisance.

4.3.
It is not the case of the petitioner either in its pleading or
through its learned counsel Sri Srivastava that Sri Yadav, City
Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar was not conferred power by the State
Government to decide such a proceeding.

4.4.
The petitioner has failed to rebut the statutory presumption of
correctness of the official acts attacked with the order of the
Magistrate.

4.5.
The impugned order further shows that the proceeding was
initiated on 3.2.1998 on the Inspection Report of the U.P. Pollution
Control Board, Regional Office and Laboratory, Dehradun.

5.
For the aforementioned reasons this writ petition is dismissed.

6.
The office is directed to hand over a copy of this order to Sri
Sudhir Jaiswal, learned Standing Counsel, within a week for its
communication to the authority concerned.

Petition Dismissed.
1999
------
M/S A.T.R.
Works
 Vs.
City
Magistrate,
& others
------
Binod Kumar
Roy, J.
Ram Kishore
Singh,J.
2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
177

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'

%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( '. 6(7+ -
7+( +21·%/( '. 6(7+ -

&,9,/ 0,6& :5,7 3(7,7,21 12 2)

5DP %LODV 7HZDUL
« 3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQG 2WKHUV
« 5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
 6KUL 5DP 0RKDQ
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQW
 6&

+LJK &RXUW 5XOHV &KDSWHU ;;,, 5XOH XQGHU WKLV UXOH VHFRQG ZULW
SHWLWLRQ FDQQRW EH PDLQWDLQHG RQ WKH VDPH IDFWV LQYROYLQJ WKH
VDPH FDXVH RI DFWLRQ LI WKH SHWLWLRQHU RPLWWHG QHFHVVDU\ DQG
SURSHU SDUW\ LQ WKH HDUOLHU ZULW SHWLWLRQ KH FDQQRW PDLQWDLQ VHFRQG
ZULW SHWLWLRQ RQ WKH JURXQG WKDW KH KDG QRW LPSOHDGHG WKH
QHFHVVDU\ SDUW\ LQ WKH HDUOLHU FDVH

By the Court

Pursuant to a Government Order dated 22.11.1993 the
petitioner was absorbed in the service of the Government protecting
his salary to the extent of last pay which he was receiving while
employed in the Gorakhpur Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited which
alleged to have been wound up. The petitioner had moved a writ
petition no.6483 of 1998 along with three other persons claiming the
relief of fixation of salary on the basis of last pay drawn by him in
the Nigam. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated
27.2.1998 which is Annexure-8 to the writ petition. It appears from
the said order that an additional grievance was also raised in the writ
petition to the extent that the arrears withheld by the Nigam is a
liability of the State Government where the petitioner has been
absorbed for which the petitioner has made a representation which
was directed to be considered by the said order without recording
any observation regard to with the entitlement of the petitioner.

Shri Ram Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that since Nigam was not a party in the said writ petition, therefore,
1999
------
January, 13