Doon Convent Public School vs Kamlesh Sharma

Iqbal Singh, J.

The short question on which this petition can be disposed of is whether the present petition is maintainable in view of the dismissal of the revision petition filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ''the Code'') by the petitioner against the same order dated 4.7.1995 (Annexure P4).

The facts, giving rise to the present petition are as under :

The petitioner, Doon Convent Public School, Ballabgarh hereinafter referred to as ''the petitionerschool) applied for the allotment of land for school building to the Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority. It is alleged that there is no complaint against the petitioner School for creating any nuisance or disturbance. An application was filed by the respondent on 2.5.1993 under Section 133 of the Code alleging that the students of the petitioner School caused nuisance and disturbance to them. On

this, the learned Magistrate passed a conditional order dated 6.7.1974 (Annexure P2) directing the petitioner school to remove/close the school in the residential area within fifteen days and to appear in the Court. After the order Annexure P2, the petitioner School filed a detailed reply dated 2.8.1994 (Annexure P3). The learned Magistrate vide impugned order dated 4.7.1995 (Annexure P4) confirmed the conditional order dated 6.7.1994 (Annexure P2) and directed the Estate Manager, Housing Board, to proceed against petitioner School according to the rules framed by the Housing Board. The petitioner School filed a revision petition dated 6.5.1996 (Annexure P5) before the Sessions Judge, Faridabad, against the order dated 4.7.1995 (Annexure P4), which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide order dated 15.6.1996 (Annexure P6). Hence the present petition under Section 482 of the Code has been filed by the petitioner School.

In the return filed by the respondents, a preliminary objection was raised that the present petition is not maintainable as the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 4.7.1995 (Annexure P4) was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide order dated 15.6.1996 (Annexure P6) and under Section 397(3) of the Code, the second revision petition is not maintainable in this Court. It has been further stated that previously the petitioner School had also filed a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Faridabad, on 16.8.1994 against the decision dated 6.7.1994 (Annexure P2) which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, on 9.11.1994 vide order Annexure R1. It has also been stated that the petitioner School is guilty of violating the Regulations of Housing Board Haryana (Allotments, Management and Sales of Tenements) Regulations, 1972.

I have heard Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate the learned counsel for the petitioner School and Mr. Harsh Aggarwal Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents.

Admittedly, revision petition was filed by the petitioner School against the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 4.7.1995 (Annexure P4) and it was dismissed. It is settled law that when a specific provision is made, easy resort to inherent power is not right except under compelling circumstances. It is not so because there is absence of jurisdiction, but it is so that inherent power should not invade areas set apart for specific powers under the same Code. Section 482 of the Code is pervasive but it should not subvert legal interdicts written into the same Code, for instance, in Section 397(2) of the Code. The inherent power of the Court will come into play when there is no other provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. This court will only interfere where it is absolutely necessary, such as in a case of abuse of the process of the court or for the purpose of securing the ends of justice. This Court is required to exercise its inherent power very sparingly, i.e. in a case which is initiated illegally, vexatiously or as being without jurisdiction. In the instant case, if there is any violation of the Regulations of Housing Board Haryana (Allotments, Management and Sales of Tenements) Regulation, 1972, it is for the authority under that Regulations to take action.

In view of the settled proposition of law, I need not go into the merits of the case.

For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.