IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2011 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 676 of 2011() ---------------------------------- ( ORDER NO. A.11826/2009 of SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE KOZHIKODE) .................... PETITIONER/ PETITIONER --------------------------------------- DR.ANITHA KUMARI, AYIROLIMEETHAL, PHED VARLIATHIRUTHI ROAD, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN SRI.HANSON.P.MATHEW RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------- 1. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE.PIN- 673 020 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE.PIN-673 020 3. POOKKODANCHALIL ABU, ULLIYERI VILLAGE, KOYILANDI, KOZHIKODE-673 323. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.676 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2011. ORDER In view of the order I propose to pass notice to respondent No.3 is dispensed with. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor who took notice for respondents 1 and 2. 2. Alleging that respondent No.3 has excavated his land and that affected stability of building of petitioner, the latter filed a petition before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kozhikode who issued Annexure-A, conditional order which was later made absolute as seen from Annexure-B, order dated 11.03.2011. Since the order was not complied petitioner preferred Annexure-C, petition before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Grievance of petitioner is that no order has been passed on Annexure-C, petition and the information collected under the Right to Information Act (Annexure-F) revealed that since respondent No.3 is not in station and though his wife was asked to comply with Annexure-B, order she expressed inability to do so due to financial reasons. Petitioner therefore seeks a direction to respondent No.1 to implement Annexure-B, order as provided under Section 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Crl.MC No.676/2011 2 3. Learned counsel submitted that the building is in such a condition on account of excavation of land from the property of respondent No.3, that it is likely to fall down and endanger human life. According to the learned counsel, it is sufficient that the building is likely to endanger the life of a single individual. It is not necessary for this Court to go into the correctness of the said contentions. 4. Petitioner has filed Annexure-C, petition before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. It is open to the petitioner to request the Sub Divisional Magistrate to pass appropriate orders on Annexure-C, petition. Resultantly this petition is disposed of making it clear that it is open to the petitioner to request the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kozhikode to pass appropriate orders on Annexure-C, petition (if it is not already disposed of) and if any such request is made the Sub Divisional Magistrate shall consider the request and pass appropriate orders as the law provides as early as possible. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks