# Merino Industries Ltd v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 115 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-01-29 - **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10039 of 2022 - **Bench:** Sandeep Jain - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/merino-industries-ltd-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54374 - **Pages:** 6 ## Text 4 All. Merino Industries Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 115 information report as well as going of the deceased to the house of Vinod, but this Court failed to understand as to why s has not told this fact to PW-1, Kartar Singh. 52. PW-11, Yashpal is the brother of PW-2, Rati Ram. He has only seen the dead body lying beside his house on the heap of bricks. 53. From the perusal of the above evidence of the witnesses, it can be safely be inferred that their evidences are full of discrepancies and they can be termed as wholly unreliable witnesses. It can also be held that this is a case of no evidence and the evidence has been fabricated in piecemeal to drag the appellant in the present case. 54. In view of the above, the judgement dated 07.10.2015 and order dated 08.10.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 207 of 2010, arising out of Case Crime No. 170 of 2009, under Section 302/201 IPC, Police Station Saroorpur, district Meerut are set aside. The appellant-Vinod is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. 55. The appeal is allowed. 56. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties are discharged. 57. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned for compliance and compliance report be submitted to this Court within two months. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 115 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.01.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10039 of 2022 Merino Industries Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Issue for Consideration Issue pertains to whether the order passed by the Magistrate u/s 133 Cr.P.C. directing immediate closure of boiler installed in the petitioner's factory was legally sustainable when the petitioner had filed objections to the show cause notice, but no opportunity was afforded to adduce evidence and the mandatory procedure prescribed u/s 138 Cr.P.C. had not been followed. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 133(1), 138 - Public nuisance - Closure of factory boiler - Magistrate - Not considered evidence - No opportunity of hearing - Statutory compliance - 116 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Impugned order - Set aside - Remand for fresh decision - The petitioner-company, Merino Industries Ltd., has been operating its factory since 1981 - Subsequently, land adjoining the factory was allotted by the Hapur-Pilkhua Development Authority for establishment of Delhi Public School, which came into existence in 2005 - During inspection conducted for renewal of school's No Objection Certificate from the Fire Department, apprehensions were expressed regarding the possibility of an accident on account of boiler installed in petitioner's factory - Consequently, proceedings u/s 133(1) Cr.P.C. were initiated and a show cause notice was issued directing removal of boiler - The petitioner submitted detailed replies asserting that the boiler was duly certified, maintained in accordance with law and operated with all requisite statutory compliances - Notwithstanding the pendency of proceedings and without considering the petitioner's objections or affording an opportunity to lead evidence, the Magistrate passed an order directing immediate closure of boiler - Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of High Court seeking quashing of notice, the closure order and proceedings initiated u/s 133 Cr.P.C. Held: In the instant case, it is apparent that the Magistrate has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of s. 138 Cr.P.C - The impugned order has been passed without affording opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence - Such action is contrary to the statutory mandate as well as the settled legal position - Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.07.2022 is legally unsustainable and is hereby set aside - The writ petition allowed - The matter is remanded to the concerned Magistrate to decide afresh, after affording due opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions, in accordance with law, within a period of three months. [Paras 17 to 20] (E-13) Case Law Cited M/s Hindustan Glue and Gelatin Factory v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1997 SCC OnLine All 1085; Jagdamba Prasad Tewari & Another v. State of U.P. & Others 1990 SCC OnLine All 723; Mool Chandra and others v. State of UP and another 2005 SCC OnLine All 1476; Krishan Lal Bhutani v. Municipal Corporation Rohtak and Another 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 4649 - referred to List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 List of Keywords Writ Petition; ss. 133(1), 138 Cr.P.C.; Factory; Hapur-Pilkhua Development Authority; Establishment of school; Renewal; No objection certificate; Fire department; Possibility of accident; Explosion of boiler; Show cause notice; Public safety; Chief Fire Officer; School management was aware about existence of factory; Precautions; Statutory compliances; Certificates; Magistrate failed to consider material on record and ordered closure of boiler; Appropriate location; Boiler is maintained in accordance with law and necessary certifications have been obtained from time to time - Opportunity of hearing; Impugned order set aside; Writ petition allowed; Remanded; Decide afresh. Case Arising From ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 10039 of 2022 From the Order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the Magistrate in Case No. 3217 of 2022. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Petitoner(s): Raghav Dev Garg, Senior Advocate Adv. for the Respondent(s): G.A. 4 All. Merino Industries Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 117 (Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.) 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 14.07.2022 issued by the respondent no.2; (ii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the respondent no.2; (iii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the entire proceedings initiated and registered as Case No.3217/2022 under Section 133(1) of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner by the respondent no.2; (iv) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to refrain from taking any coercive action and from interfering in the day to day functioning of the petitioner company; (v) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and necessary; (vi) Award cost of the petition to the petitioner." 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner has been operating a factory, namely Merino Industries Ltd., since 1981. Adjacent to the said factory, after a lapse of about 25 years, land was allotted by the Hapur-Pilkhua Development Authority for establishment of a school, upon which Delhi Public School was subsequently established. 3. During the process of renewal of the No Objection Certificate from the Fire Department, the school premises were inspected, and it was opined that since the school is adjoining the petitioner?s factory, there exists a possibility of an accident due to explosion of the boiler installed in the petitioner?s factory. 4. In view thereof, a notice dated 14.07.2022 under Section 133(1) Cr.P.C. was issued to the petitioner directing removal of the boiler by 18.07.2022 and to show cause. 5. The petitioner submitted replies to the show cause notice on 25.07.2022, and 01.09.2022 was fixed as the next date in the proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. However, in the meantime, on 28.07.2022, considering the alleged threat to public safety and based on the report of the Chief Fire Officer, Hapur, the petitioner was directed to immediately shut down the operation of the boiler. The said order has been impugned in the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the factory has been operational since 1981, whereas the school was established much later. It was contended that the school management was fully aware of the existence of the factory at the time of establishing the institution. 118 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 7. It was further submitted that the boiler installed in the petitioner's factory is duly certified and all necessary precautions and statutory compliances have been undertaken for its operation. All requisite certificates have been annexed with the writ petition. Despite this, the Magistrate failed to consider the material on record and abruptly ordered closure of the boiler, which is illegal and unsustainable. 8. It was also argued that since the factory existed prior to the establishment of the school, it was incumbent upon the school authorities to select an appropriate location. Further, the impugned order was passed without affording adequate opportunity of hearing and without proper appreciation of the evidence, rendering it legally unsustainable. 9. Learned AGA could not advance any substantial argument in defence of the impugned order. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the material on record. 11. The record indicates that the petitioner?s factory has been functional since 1981, whereas Delhi Public School was established in the year 2005. It is also evident that the petitioner has placed on record documents demonstrating that the boiler is maintained in accordance with law and that all necessary certifications have been obtained from time to time. 12. It further appears that although the petitioner submitted replies to the show cause notice dated 14.07.2022, the same were not considered, and the order directing closure of the boiler was passed abruptly on 28.07.2022. 13. The Division Bench of this Court in M/s Hindustan Glue and Gelatin Factory vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1997 SCC OnLine All 1085, has held that where a person appears before the Magistrate and submits a reply to the show cause notice under Section 133 Cr.P.C., it is incumbent upon the Magistrate to take evidence in the manner prescribed for summons cases under Section 138(1) Cr.P.C. It was further held that an order made absolute under Section 138(2) Cr.P.C. without affording opportunity to lead evidence is erroneous. 14. Similarly, in Jagdamba Prasad Tewari & Another vs. State of U.P. & Others 1990 SCC OnLine All 723, this Court held that the provisions of Section 138(1) Cr.P.C. are mandatory in nature, and before making an order absolute under sub-section (2), it is imperative for the Magistrate to take evidence in the manner as required in summons case. 15. This Court again in the case of Mool Chandra and others vs. State of UP and another 2005 SCC OnLine All 1476, held as under:- "8. Whilst at the initial stage under Section 133(1) when a conditional order for removing of nuisance is passed, (in this case the said order was passed on 21-10-2000), it may not be necessary to take oral evidence of the parties because the relevant requirement at that stage is only for the Magistrate to take ?such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit? for passing the conditional order 4 All. Merino Industries Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 119 requiring the person to remove the obstruction or nuisance or if he objects to do so, to appear before the Magistrate to show cause why the order be not made absolute. 9. In this connection, the first clause of Section 133 of the Code reads as under: 133(1) Whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially, empowered in this behalf by the State Government, on receiving the report of a police officer or other information and on taking such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit. 10. However, after the person has shown cause as has been done in this case, then the procedure of Section 138 has to be followed where the Magistrate is required to take evidence in the matter as in a summons case and if he satisfies that the order as originally made or subject to such modification was proper, then he may make the same absolute on such terms as he deems proper or drop the proceedings if he is not satisfied that the order should be made absolute. In this connection, Section 138(1) of the Code reads as follows: If the person against whom an order under Section 133 is made appears and shows cause against the order, the Magistrate shall take evidence in the matter as in a summons case. 16. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Krishan Lal Bhutani vs. Municipal Corporation Rohtak and Another 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 4649, held as under:- "5. Challenging the aforesaid orders, the sole submission made before this Court by ld. counsel is that since the petitioner had raised objection against the conditional order, so opportunity to produce evidence was required to be given to him under Section 138 CrPC, which was not afforded to him... 6. Ld. counsel for the respondents could not refute the aforesaid contention to the effect that opportunity under Section 138 CrPC was not afforded to the petitioner to produce his evidence. *** 9. Bare perusal of above provisions would make it clear that Section 133 Cr. P.C. provides for issuance of conditional order only for removal of the nuisance. By way of the conditional order, the opposite party is asked to show cause as to why the said order should not be made absolute. Once such a conditional order is passed, Section 138 of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly provides that upon appearance of the person, against whom conditional order has been passed under Section 133 Cr. P.C. and who show causes against the order, the Magistrate is required to take evidence in the matter as in summons case. 10. In the present case, conditional order had been passed against the petitioner. He had appeared before the SDM, Rohtak against the said show cause. He had filed his objections. Despite the same, opportunity of producing evidence was not given to him as required under Section 138 CrPC. 120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 11. Consequently, impugned order dated 17.02.2012 (Annexure P4) passed by ld. Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Rohtak dismissing the revision against the order dated 05.09.2011 (Annexure P3), passed by ld. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rohtak, whereby petitioner was directed to close down his shop of fodder cutting machine under Section 133 CrPC, is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Court of SDM, Rohtak with the direction to provide opportunity to the parties, so as to produce evidence as per Section 138 CrPC and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law." 17. In the present case, it is apparent that the Magistrate has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 138 Cr.P.C. The impugned order has been passed without affording opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. Such action is contrary to the statutory mandate as well as the settled legal position. 18. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.07.2022 is legally unsustainable and is hereby set aside. 19. The writ petition is allowed. 20. The matter is remanded to the concerned Magistrate to decide afresh, after affording due opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 120 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J. First Appeal No. 387 of 2026 State of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants Versus Iftekhar Ahmad & Anr. ...Respondents ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION Whether the Reference Court, while deciding a reference under the Act of 2013, has jurisdiction to set aside the award of the Collector and remand the matter for fresh determination of compensation? HEADNOTES Civil Law - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4(1), 6, 17, 18, - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 74:- First Appeal filed under Section 74 of the Act, 2013 - for seeking quashing of the judgment of the Reference Court, whereby the Collector's award was set-aside and matter was remanded back - Land acquired in 2010 - compensation awarded in 2019 - challenged by landowners in reference court - reference Court exceeded its