Joy Joseph. Vs. Assistant Executive Engineer.

[mr.justice b.v.pinto, j.] this crl.a filed u/s.374(2) cr.p.c. by the advocate for the appellant against the judgment dt. 14.7.05 passed by the dist. & sj., fast track court ii, shimoga, in s.c.no,71/02 -convicting the appellant/accused for the offence p/u/s.326 of ipc and sentencing him to undergo s.i. for 5 years and to pay a fine of rs.3000/- i.d., s.i. for 6 months for the offence p/u/s.326 of ipc.1. petitioner is aggrieved by ext.p3, an order issued by the 1st respondent alleging that the petitioner has encroached into the road puramboke and made certain constructions. it is stated that such construction should be demolished and removed within two days. based on ext.p4, ext.p3 dated 17/12/2010 was issued. it is apprehending that coercive action based on exts.p3 and p4 will be initiated that the writ petition was filed. 2. although on receipt of ext.p4, he filed ext.p5 reply, without considering the said reply or hearing him, he was issued ext.p3. it is in the above circumstances, the writ petition was filed. now that obviously the communications were issued without issuing notice to the petitioner or conducting any measurement after putting him on notice, coercive action if any taken on the basis of exts.p3 and p4 will be in violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. in that view of the matter, i direct that ext.p3 dated 17/12/2010 will be treated as a notice and the petitioner will be free to file his objection and afford him an opportunity of hearing. it is also clarified that any measurement of the objectionable construction will be conducted only with notice to the petitioner. it is directed that if the petitioner files his objection within two weeks from today, he will be heard in the matter and thereafter fresh orders will be passed. until then coercive action based on exts.p3 and p4 will be kept in abeyance. 4. petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 1st respondent for compliance.