Raghavan, vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate,

Raghavan, vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 31, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1459076

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1459076
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Decided On: Jan 31, 2022
Case Number: WP(C)/6419/2020

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Raghavan,

Respondent

The Sub Divisional Magistrate,

Excerpt

.....proceedings who is the petitioner herein, to cut and remove the trees within 7 days. ext.p1 order was challenged by the petitioner by filing cr.r.p.no. 42/2017 before the additional sessions judge v, palakkad. the revision court confirmed ext.p1 order. admittedly, ext.p1 order is not complied even now. according to the petitioner, he removed the branches of the trees. but a perusal of ext.p1 will show that the direction is to cut and remove the trees. the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will be able to convince the sub divisional magistrate that the directions in ext.p1 is complied by the petitioner if ext.p5 is directed to be considered.3. admittedly, ext.p1 order is in force, which isconfirmed by ext.p2 order. the petitioner is free to approach the sub divisional magistrate and convince the sub divisional magistrate that the directions in ext.p1 order is complied by the petitioner. since the petitioner submitted ext.p5, there can be a a direction to the sub divisional magistrate to consider ext.p5 in the light of exts. p1 and p2 orders. therefore, this writ petition is disposed directing the 1 st respondent to consider ext.p5 representation in the light of exts.p1 and p2 orders and pass appropriate orders in it, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. sd/- p. v. kunhikrishnan, judge dxy appendix of wp(c) 6419/2020 petitioner exhibits exhibit p1 true copy of the order dated 18/5/2017 in m.c.no.6/2017 passed by the 1st respondent against the petitioner. exhibit p2 true copy of the judgment dated sessions judge-v, palakkad in crl.r.p.no.42/2017. exhibit p3 true copy of the letter dated 21/5/2019 issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner. exhibit p4 true copy of the photographs of the branches cut overhanging the property of the 3rd respondent. exhibit p5 true copy of the petition dated the 1st respondent. exhibit p5(a) true copy of the postal receipt.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 11TH MAGHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 6419 OF 2020 PETITIONER/S: RAGHAVAN, AGED 61 YEARS S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PALAPOTTA HOUSE, KARIYANKODE, KOTTAYI, MATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 572. BY ADV RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, OFFICE OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, HPO ROAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 001. 2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MATHUR-II VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -678 571. 3 P.C.MANI, S/O.CHELLAN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, PALAPOTTA HOUSE, KARIYANKODE, KOTTAYI, MATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 572. BY ADVS. SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) SRI.V.KRISHNADAS SHRI.SARATH M.S.
OTHER PRESENT: SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 6419 of 2020 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2022

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers. “(i) issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Direction or Order, commanding the 1st Respondent to hear the Petitioner and dispose Exhibit P-5 within a time frame that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court;

(ii) call for records and quash Exhibit P-3 passed by the 1 st Respondent by means of Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ,

order or Direction;

(iii) Direct the 1st Respondent, while conducting enquiry into Exhibit P-5, not to mechanically insist for cutting of trees if the same do not pose danger, by means of an appropriate Writ Order or Direction;

(iv) Hold that the cutting of branches of the trees reported through Exhibit P-5 is sufficient compliance of Exhibit P-1

order by means of an appropriate Writ Direction or Order;

and

(v) to issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.”

2. The Sub Divisional Magistrate passed Ext.P1 order

invoking the powers under Section 136 of Cr.P.C. As per Ext.P1 the Sub Divisional Magistrate directed the respondent in that proceedings who is the petitioner herein, to cut and remove the trees within 7 days. Ext.P1 order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Cr.R.P.No. 42/2017 before the Additional Sessions Judge V, Palakkad. The revision court confirmed Ext.P1 order. Admittedly, Ext.P1 order is not complied even now. According to the petitioner, he removed the branches of the trees. But a perusal of Ext.P1 will show that the direction is to cut and remove the trees. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will be able to convince the Sub Divisional Magistrate that the directions in Ext.P1 is complied by the petitioner if Ext.P5 is directed to be considered.

3. Admittedly, Ext.P1 order is in force, which is

confirmed by Ext.P2 order. The petitioner is free to approach the Sub Divisional Magistrate and convince the Sub Divisional Magistrate that the directions in Ext.P1 order is complied by the petitioner. Since the petitioner submitted Ext.P5, there can be a a direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to consider Ext.P5 in the light of Exts. P1 and P2 orders. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed directing the 1 st respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation in the light of Exts.P1 and P2 orders and pass appropriate orders in it, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE Dxy APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6419/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/5/2017 IN M.C.NO.6/2017 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED SESSIONS JUDGE-V, PALAKKAD IN CRL.R.P.NO.42/2017. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21/5/2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BRANCHES CUT OVERHANGING THE PROPERTY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED P5 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties Raghavan, vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan