1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Criminal Original Petition(MD)No.2077 of 2011 P.Chandrasekaran ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur District, Karur. 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karur District, Karur. 3. The Thasildar, Karur. 4. The Inspector of Police, Vellianai Police Station, Karur District. 5. Thangaraj ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to direct the 2 to 4 respondents to implement the order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.A2/3706/2010, dated 05.01.2011 within a stipulated time fixed by this Court. For Petitioner :: M/s. S.Gokulraj For R1 to R4 :: Mrs.S.Devasena, Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to implement the order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.A2/3706/2010, dated 05.01.2011, within a stipulated time fixed by this Court. 2. Heard Mr.S.Gokulraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.S.Devasena, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 4. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner owns agricultural land in S.F.Nos.138 and 139 at Kakkavadi Village, Karur District and the fifth respondent herein obstructed the public pathway by putting fence, which is situated in S.F.No.134 at Kakkavadi Village, Karur District and the petitioner herein obstructed by the fifth respondent from entering his land. He would further submit in his argument that on 27.12.2010, the petitioner has given a representation to the District Collector, Karur District stating that the fifth respondent herein was putting fence in the public pathway and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 same representation was forwarded to the first respondent for consideration. He would also submit that the first respondent, on 05.01.2011, passed an order in Na.Ka.No.A2/3706/2010 under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. to remove the obstruction made by the fifth respondent in the public pathway and directed the respondents 2 to 4 to execute an order of the first respondent. However, the respondents 2 to 4 are not interested to execute the order of the first respondent. Hence, he approached the respondents 2 to 4 in person and gave a representation on 11.02.2011 for the purpose of executing the order of the first respondent, dated 05.01.2011. He would also submit that since no action has been taken by the respondents 2 to 4, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to implement the order of the first respondent, dated 05.01.2011. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit in her argument that no doubt it is the duty of the respondents 2 to 4 to obey the direction of the superior officer and the respondents 2 to 4 will be directed to obey the order of the first respondent and suitable orders may be passed thereon. 5. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on either side. 6. The petitioner has sought for removal of obstruction and seeking for a direction to proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. and the petitioner gave a representation to the District Collector, Karur District, on 27.12.2010, stating that the fifth respondent was putting fence in the public pathway and the said representation was forwarded to the first respondent for consideration. The first respondent on 05.01.2011, has passed an order to remove the obstruction made by the fifth respondent in the public pathway and directed the respondents 2 to 4 to execute the order of the first respondent. However, the respondents 2 to 4 are not execute the order of the first respondent. According to the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the obstruction is still existing. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner and to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to implement the order of the first respondent dated 05.01.2011 in Na.Ka.No.A2/3706/2010. Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to proceed under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. is ordered. 8. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court for fixation of time for removal of obstruction. Accordingly, the respondents 2 to 4 are directed to implement the order of the first respondent and to remove the obstruction, if existing in the public pathway, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True copy/ Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur District, Karur. 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karur District, Karur. 3. The Tahsildar, Karur. 4. The Inspector of Police, Vellianai Police Station, Karur District. 5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to Mr. S.Gokul Raj, Advocate, sr.NO.10274 akv Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2077 of 2011 25.02.2011 TR : 29.03.2011 : 3p/7c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/