Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, mine transporters, challenged a Corrigendum issued by the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) of Bicholim on 03.02.2010, which substituted the word 'or' with 'and' in an earlier order dated 28.01.2010 passed under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The original order directed the transporters to stop mining transportation on the Kalne/Raddi road or to appear before the SDO on 08.02.2010 to show cause why the order should not be made absolute. The Corrigendum effectively made the order absolute by requiring both compliance and appearance. The High Court of Bombay at Goa, presided by Justice R. M. Savant, held that the Corrigendum was illegal because it removed the conditional nature of the order under Section 133 CrPC, which requires a show cause opportunity before the order becomes absolute. The court noted that the substitution of 'or' by 'and' effectively made the order absolute without giving the transporters a chance to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The court quashed the Corrigendum and directed the SDO to proceed with the matter in accordance with law, allowing the petitioners to appear and show cause on the scheduled date. The judgment emphasizes that under Section 133 CrPC, the initial order is conditional and cannot be made absolute without hearing the affected parties.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 133 - Conditional Order - Substitution of 'or' by 'and' - The SDO issued an order under Section 133 CrPC directing mine transporters to stop transportation of ore on Kalne/Raddi road or to appear before him to show cause. By a Corrigendum, the word 'or' was substituted by 'and', making the order absolute. The High Court held that the Corrigendum was illegal as it removed the conditional nature of the order and effectively made it absolute without giving the transporters an opportunity of hearing. The Corrigendum was quashed and set aside. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Sub Divisional Officer could, by a Corrigendum, substitute the word 'or' by 'and' in an order under Section 133 CrPC, thereby converting a conditional order into an absolute order without giving the affected parties an opportunity of hearing.
Final Decision
The Corrigendum dated 03.02.2010 is quashed and set aside. The SDO is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law, and the petitioners are at liberty to appear before the SDO on 08.02.2010 to show cause.
Law Points
- Section 133 CrPC
- conditional order
- show cause
- substitution of 'or' by 'and'
- illegal modification
- natural justice
- public nuisance
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (02) 95
Criminal Writ Petition No. 15 of 2010
Mr. A. D. Bhobe for Petitioner, Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent no.1
Mr. Rohan Vaman Savaiker, Mr. Gurudatta Krishna Pal, Mr. Sanjay Ratnakar Khandeparkar
State, Villagers of Bicholim Taluka, Transporters (Mine Transporters), Deputy Collector and Sub Divisional Magistrate of Bicholim Taluka
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Writ Petition challenging a Corrigendum issued by the Sub Divisional Officer under Section 133 CrPC.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the Corrigendum dated 03.02.2010 which substituted the word 'or' by 'and' in the order dated 28.01.2010.
Filing Reason
The Corrigendum illegally converted a conditional order into an absolute order without giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing.
Previous Decisions
The SDO passed an order under Section 133 CrPC on 28.01.2010 directing the mine transporters to stop transportation of ore on Kalne/Raddi road or to appear before him on 08.02.2010 to show cause. On 03.02.2010, the SDO issued a Corrigendum substituting 'or' by 'and'.
Issues
Whether the SDO could, by a Corrigendum, substitute the word 'or' by 'and' in an order under Section 133 CrPC, thereby converting a conditional order into an absolute order without giving the affected parties an opportunity of hearing.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the Corrigendum was illegal as it removed the conditional nature of the order under Section 133 CrPC and effectively made it absolute without giving them an opportunity of hearing.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 133 CrPC, the initial order is conditional and cannot be made absolute without giving the affected parties an opportunity of hearing. The substitution of 'or' by 'and' in the Corrigendum effectively made the order absolute, which is illegal and violative of the scheme of Section 133 CrPC.
Judgment Excerpts
By Corrigendum issued on 03.02.2010, the word 'or' was sought to be substituted by the S.D.O. by the word 'and'.
The said Corrigendum is therefore illegal and is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Procedural History
The SDO passed an order under Section 133 CrPC on 28.01.2010 directing the mine transporters to stop transportation of ore on Kalne/Raddi road or to appear before him on 08.02.2010 to show cause. On 03.02.2010, the SDO issued a Corrigendum substituting 'or' by 'and'. The petitioners filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 15 of 2010 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging the Corrigendum. The High Court heard the matter on 10.02.2010 and quashed the Corrigendum.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 133
