AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Tahsildar, Sivagangai Taluk, submitted a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai, stating that Sivagangai Municipality has
granted permission for 40 shops, without undertaking a proper survey, on account of which, there is a serious threat to health and hygiene,
inasmuch as the shops are vending Tea, Coffee and Cigarettes and cups used by the customers are strewn around, which are clogging the
drainage. The shops are petty shops kept in and around arterial roads on account of which traffic snarl occurs. Based on the report, the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Sivagangai, issued a direction dated 14.11.2016 to Sivagangai Municipality to cancel the licence and take steps to remove the
nuisance.
In the operative portion of the order, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai, has invoked the provision of Section 133 Cr.P.C.. Challenging
the said order, the petitioners claiming to be the grave shop keepers have filed this Criminal Revision Case.
Heard Mr.V.Sasikumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.C.Mayil vahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
first respondent and Mr.P.Srinivas, learned counsel for the second respondent.
At the outset, this Criminal Revision Case is not maintainable, because, the order dated 14.11.2016 passed under Section 133 Cr.P.C. is not
aimed at the petitioners, but, it is a direction given by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai, to the Sivakasi Municipality for taking suitable
action for the cancellation of licences in order to ensure that there is no nuisance in and around the area. Only if the order is aimed at the
petitioners, then, the question of hearing them would arise.
In this case, sufficient materials have been placed by the Tahsildar before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai, to show the nature of
nuisance that occurs in the area in question, on account of grant of petty shop licence by the Sivagangai Municipality. Therefore, if the petitioners
are aggrieved over any action that has been taken by the Sivagangai Municipality, it is always open to them to work out their remedies in the
manner known to law. It is not to open to them to challenge the order dated 14.11.2016 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai,
which is impugned herein.
With the above observations, this Criminal Revision Case is closed. The order of interim stay granted by this Court is vacated. Consequently,
the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.