- (1.) THIS Rule is against an order dated 20. 12. 67 passed by Shri A. K. Datta, senior Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta in case No. 4a/66, directing the petitioners, M/s. Kanak Kumar and Ashok kumar and R. L. Chopra to remove the cork-grinding factory in dispute from the present site at premises Np. 20/a, Meher Ali Mondal Street, Calcutta to some other suitable and appropriate place within six months from the date, in default whereof the commissioner, Corporation of Calcutta is to apply to get the said disputed factory removed from the present site.
(2.) THE petitioner No. 1, is a firm, carrying on the business of a crokgrinding factory under the name and style of M/s. Kanak Kumar and Ashok kumar at presimses No. 201 A, Meher ali Mondal Street, Calcutta, havnig a licence (Ext. A) for professions, trades and callings granted by the Corporation of Calcutta under section 218 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, as also a licence (Ext. C) under the West bengal Fire Services Act, 1950. The petitioner No. 2 is the proprietor of the said firm. The facts leading on to the present Rule are that the opposite-party the Corporation of Calcutta, filed an application under section 583 of the calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 through its sanitary inspector, S. R. Ghosh, on 12. 9. 66 against (a) the Central Bank of India Limited, (b) Ghourmull marwari (landlords), (c) M/ s. Kanak Kumar and Ashok Kumar and (d) Shri r. L. Chopra (occupier), alleging that sound and dust nuisances were being committed by the petitioners in course of running the said crok-grinding factory, without any licence under section 437 (1) (b) of the Calcutta Municipal act, 1951 and that the local residents were complaining against the said factory due to the nuisance which was being created, affecting their health and comfort. Upon the aforesaid averments, proceedings were started under section 583 of the Calcutta Municipal act, 1951, before Shri A. K. Datta, Senior Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta, against the petitioners and two others.
(3.) THE defence case inter alia is that the petitioners are not guilty; that there was no nuisance as alleged or at all either in the shape of sound or of dust, caused by the factory in question ; that the factory was situated in an area which is a mixed locality, consisting of several factories, shops and other establishments ; that even if there was any nuisance, the same was capable of being abated ; and that the entire case was due to the machinations of some interested persons including one Kulwant Ray (P. W. 5), who wanted to get into the premises in question but having failed therein was inimically disposed towards the petitioners. The landlord, Ghourmull Marwari, the opposite-party No. 2 in the court below in fact filed a written statement fully supporting the petitioner's case and he also deposed in the case as;