SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is restored today and heard finally on merits.
(2.) THE petitioner is running a work shop in the name and style of M/s. Ahesan Engineering Works, Jodhpur near Jawahar Khana, inside Sojati Gate, Jodhpur, which is thickly populated area of Jodhpur. THE petitioner applied for no objection certificate which was granted by an order dated 25. 6. 1964 passed by the then Revenue Officer of Municipal Council, Jodhpur. THE petitioner was also registered under the Shops and Commercial Establishment Act vide certificate dated 10. 8. 1964. It is also registered with the Department of Industries and Supply for Small Scale Industry in 1972. According to the petitioner the people of Jawahar Kha-na, where the petitioner is carrying on his business, were running brothel for which the petitioner lodged complaint to the local administration time and again. Not only that he also filed writ petition no. 442/90 with the prayer that District Administration may be directed to stop that brothel business and to implement the provision of Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956, which is replaced by the Prostitution Pre-vention Act, 1986. THE said petition was dismissed as stated at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself. However, Mr. Sharma states that because of his petition the administration took steps and stop the brothel houses running by the people of Jawahar Khana area. It is the case of the petitioner that because of this the people of Jawahar Khana got annoyed with him and lodged fa-lse complaint against him for running the business of gas and electric welding and thereby causing noise pollution which is required to be stopped immediately. Interim order was passed by the Addl. District Magistrate, Jodhpur on that complaint on 19. 4. 1989 calling upon the petitioner to show cause within 10 days as to why the order should not be made absolute against him of closing down his unit. THE said order was passed under Section 133 Cr. P. C. The petitioner submitted his reply and pointed out that the workshop was run by him in his private premises and he was not causing nuisance or obstruction on a public road and the ingredients of Section 133 Cr. P. C. are not at all attracted in the case. According to the petitioner, the witnesses of the complainant were not present on 22. 2. 1990 and the Addl. District Magistrate was also on leave and next date was not intimated to the petitioner. However, the matter was taken up on 24. 3. 1990 without informing the petitioner and on that day the counsel for the petitioner was at Delhi, therefore, he could not remain present. It is also alleged that Addl. District Magistrate that in connivance with the complainant side the evidence of the witnesses who were present on that day were recorded and the matter was posted on 26. 3. 1990 for arguments. On 26. 3. 1990 without giving an opportunity to the petitioner or to his counsel the arguments were heard and ex-parte order was passed by the respondent no. 2 directing the petitioner to remove his work shop within ten days from the passing of the order, failing which proceedings will be initiated against him under Section 188 IPC. The said impugned order at Annex. 6 is challenged by the petitioner by way of this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel Shri Sharma for the petitioner vehemently submitted that after the petitioner was granted permission on 25. 6. 1964 (Annex. P/1) the Addl. District Magistrate could not have passed order under Section 133 Cr. P. C. because the permission was granted by the then Revenue Officer of Municipal Council, Jodhpur after inviting objections from the people of that locality and at that time no such objection was filed by anyone. It is true that permission was granted by the Revenue Officer of the Municipal Council, Jodhpur, but it was granted way back in 1964. The population of Jodhpur was not much at that time. There was no traffic nuisance at that time. Vehicles were also less. This Court has to see what was the position when the Addl. District Magistrate passed the impugned order at Annex. 6. From the impugned order at Annex. 6 dated 26. 3. 1990, it is clear that the petitioner was causing public nuisance in a residential area. If after appreciating the evidence lead before him, the Addl. District Magistrate passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to stop his business then it cannot be said that the Addl. District Magistrate has committed any error in passing the impugned order. Mr. Sharma then contended that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of leading evidence and in his absence the Addl. District Magistrate in connivance with the complainant side recorded the evidence of the witnesses of the complainant ex-parte and relied upon the same. This allegation has been specifically denied in the reply affidavit. The circumstances, under which the Addl. District Magistrate was required to pass the order have been satisfactorily explained in the reply affidavit and there is no rejoinder to this and there is no reason to dis-believe the submissions made on oath by the responsible officer like Addl. Dis-trict Magistrate. It may be stated that the petitioner was given an opportunity and he filed his reply and even today learned counsel for the petitioner stated that instead of closing down the entire unit, if the petitioner is prevented from doing his gas and electric welding work on public road then also he will have no objection. Meaning thereby, the petitioner was carrying on his work of gas and electric weld-ing on public road and such work is bound to cause nuisance to the public. When the petitioner was given ample opportunity to lead his evidence and if he failed to avail it then he must thank himself. Lateron, he cannot make grievance that impugned order was passed without giving him an opportunity of hearing. Hence, this submission of Mr. Sharma is rejected. Mr. Sharma then contended that because of the petition filed by the petitioner against some of the residents of Jawahar Khana area, who are running brothel in their houses, therefore, by way of taking revenge against the petitioner they filed this complaint that petitioner is causing public nuisance on public road. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that these persons were running brothel for which the petitioner made complaint and also filed writ petition before this Court and it was only thereafter, the administration took steps to stop that business, but that does not mean that if such persons file complaint to the competent authority for public nuisance and if the authority is satisfied that petitioner was causing public nuisance then it cannot be said that such an order was in any way bad or illegal. Except these submissions, no other submission was raised.
(3.) BEFORE parting, I must state that noise pollution is also dangerous to public health and lives and it is high time that authority should check this type of nuisance. When the authority, on evidence before it, is satisfied that the petitioner was cau-sing public nuisance on public road by gas and electric welding work and if the authority had ordered under Section 133 Cr. P. C. to close down the unit to stop public nuisance then this Court will not interfere with such order in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Stay granted earlier, stands vacated forthwith. Ordinarily, a request to grant time to make alternative arrangement is not granted, but on the assurance of the learned counsel that petitioner will make an alternative arrangement and shift his business within one month from the present premises in question and he will not carry on the matter further in appeal, therefore, one months time as prayed for is granted. . ;