JUDGMENT S.C. Jain, J.

(1) As common questions of law and facts are involved in these three petitions (Crl. M (M) 635/91 S.P. Plastic v. Stole Crl. M(M) 636/91 New light Plastic v. State and Cri. M (M) 637/91 Navyug Papers v. State) filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C., so I dispose of all these three above petitions by this common order.

(2) In brief, the facts of these cases are that on receipt of a complaint that there are some factories operating in shops No. 29, 31 and 33 in New Market, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi, having heavy machinery and having heavy power load which is a source of nuisance on account of air/noise pollution for the residents, S.D.M. Patel Nagar, New Delhi took cognizance of the matter and issued a conditional order under Section 133(l)(b) Cr. P.C. to the occupants of these shops No. 29, 31 and 33 New Market, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. intimating them that they are carrying on manufacture of plastic or plastic related products in the said premises and the same is injurious to public health and physical comfort of the community and they should cease to carry on the said occupation within one month and to show cause why this conditional order should not be enforced.

(3) This conditional order has been challenged by these three petitioners in these petitions.

(4) Section 133(1)(b) Cr. P.C. provides that whenever Sdm considers that conduct of any trade or occupation is injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community and that in consequence, such trade or occupation should be prohibited or regulated, he may make a conditional order requiring the person carrying on such trade or occupation, within a time to be fixed in the order, to desist from carrying on or to remove or regulate in such manner as may be directed, such trade or occupation or if he objects to it, to appear at a time and place to be fixed by the order and show cause why the order should not be made absolute.

(5) Instead of appearing before the Sdm and showing cause to the show cause notice, the petitioners have rushed to this Court by filing these petitions under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Counsel for the petitioners raised various -objections to the issuance of the said conditional order by the SDM. His first contention is that the procedure adopted by the Sdm is violative of the provisions of Section 137 to 139 Cr. P.C. and by inspecting the site herself the Sdm has acted illegally and the order is unsustainable.

(6) The next submission made by the counsel for the petitioners is that the provisions of Section 133 Cr. P.C. are meant for removing of public and not private nuisance and no person has the right to agitate his private dispute under this Section. In this case, the Sdm has acted on a private complaint of some individuals. All the residents of the locality have not made any such complaint though these factories are in existence since long.

(7) His last submission is that (The) Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 is a special Act brought on the statute book and constitutes a special code for prevention and control of air pollution by any trade or industry. It has expressly mandated therein that notwithstanding anything inconsistant thereto contained in any enactment other than this Act, these provisions have to prevail and inconsistant provisions in any other act cannot therefore, be permitted to come in the way of the provisions of the special Act and defeat them. In view of the express provisions under Section 52 of the Air Act it has been held to the extent that inconsistant provisions of penal code. General Clauses Act and the Cr. P.C. stand repealed. According to the learned counsel in matter relating to pollution of air and water by trade or industry the recourse has to be taken to the provisions of the special Acts.

(8) At this stage of show cause notice I find no substance in the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners. Sections 133 to 143 Cr. P.C. lay down complete procedure while conducting an enquiry in the case of public nuisance. Under Section 139 Cr.P.C. the magistrate may for the purpose of enquiry under Section 137 Cr. P.C. or Section 138 Cr. P.C. direct a local investigation to be made by such person as he thinks fit and examine an expert The matter is at the show cause stage only and the proper enquiry has not vet started. After perusal of the reply to the show cause notice if the Sdm proceeds to hold an enquiry under Section 137 or Section 138 he is bound to follow the procedure as laid down in Section 139 of the code. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not maintainable at this stage of show cause notice.

(9) The next contention is also devoid of any force. Even a private person can bring the matter under Section 133 Cr. P.C. to the notice of the magistrate and then it is for the magistrate to take cognizance or not and if he has started the proceedings then the matter is between the magistrate on the one side on behalf of the public at large and the person on the other side to whom notice was issued. Reliance is placed on a decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Suresh Prakash v. Krishna Swarup, 1976 Crl. Law Journal 462.

(10) The last submission made by the counsel for the petitioners that provisions of Section 133 Cr. P.C. which are inconsistant with the provisions of Air Act stand repealed, also does not help the petitioners as the matter is still at the show cause stage.

(11) The petitioners can raise all these contentions before the Sdm in reply to show cause notices particularly that these industries are in existence for a considerable long time without any objection of any kind whatsoever from anybody. It is expected that the Sdm shall consider and decide all these contentions by a reasoned and detailed order.

(12) The petitions at this stage are not maintainable. I, therefore dismiss the same with the above observation. The record of the Sdm be sent back immediately.