IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16724 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.K. VENUGOPAL, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY AGED 53 YEARS, WATCH REPAIRER KURUMBOOR HOUSE, P.O. KUNNAMKULAM THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.S.SREEDEV RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. REVENUE DEPT., SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIST. COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE (REVENUE DIVISIOINAL OFFICER), THRISSUR. 4. SRI. PRADEEP,. S/O. PONNARASSERY MADHAVAN, BUSINESS, SASTHA COPY WORLD, OPP. KUNNAMKULAM BUS STAND, P.O. KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 TO 3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.C.No. 16724 of 2008 N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the respondent in a proceedings initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Chapter X B of the Cr.P.C. A conditional order has been served on the petitioner calling upon him to demolish a building. He is a tenant under the landlord. The landlord has not succeeded in the proceedings for eviction and has ultimately resorted to the method of persuading the Sub Divisional Magistrate to initiate action so that the building can be demolished by action under Chapter X B. The petitioner had entered appearance and had raised his objections. Enquiry has been conducted. The matter has reached the fag end of the proceedings under Chapter X B and stands posted for orders to 13.6.2008, submits the counsel. 2. Why has the petitioner come to this Court now. According to the petitioner there has been declaration in open W.P.C.No. 16724 of 2008 2 court that the order shall be pronounced and it shall be executed straight away, thereby depriving the petitioner of an opportunity to challenge the order before superior courts. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come before this Court with a prayer that appropriate directions may be issued against such illegal and high handed action contrary to the provisions of the Code by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. 3. I do not in fact find any basis or justification for such a grievance. Section 141 Cr.P.C. makes the position crystal clear. After confirming the order a time has to be fixed for the performance of the act and it is only thereafter that action for violation and enforcement of the order can be taken. The short apprehension of the petitioner is that there may be action taken by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in violation of the letter and spirit of Section 141 Cr.P.C. 4. He apprehends that he may not be given reasonable time and may be given a short time, within which he cannot seek his relief before superior courts. The building may be demolished by then leaving the petitioner without any effective remedy. W.P.C.No. 16724 of 2008 3 5. The hypothetical possibility of the Sub Divisional Magistrate giving 24 hours or less and thereby frustrating the remedy to approach the superior court in revision cannot of course be ruled out. Considering the nature of apprehension raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am satisfied that there can be a direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate that the petitioner must be given time of atleast two weeks from the date on which the order is pronounced and copy given to him (under acknowledgment) to comply with the order and that the order should not be executed before elapse of the said period. 6. This Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in part. The above directions are issued. 7. Issue copy today itself. (R. BASANT) Judge tm