IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 25TH MAGHA 1932 OP(CRL.).NO. 572 OF 2011(Q) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER: -------------------- SASIKALA, MANKUZHY VELIYIL WARD NO.8, MUHAMMA PANCHAYATH, THANNEERMUKKOM SOUTH VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA-688525. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN BRITTO SRI.C.A.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, (SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE) OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA-688001. 2. CHIDAMBARAN, ANEESH COTTAGE, MUHAMMA.P.O., THANNEERMUKKOM SOUTH VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA-688525. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(Crl.) No.572 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 14th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Notice to the respondent (remaining after deletion of respondent No.1 from the party array) is dispensed with in view of the order I propose to pass in this petition. 2. Petitioner filed a petition purporting to be one under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) for removal of trees which according to him stand in the property of respondent endangering human life. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Alappuzha passed Ext.P4, a conditional order on May 5, 2008 in M.C. No.105 of 2008. That conditional order directed respondent to cut and remove the trees standing on the southern portion of his property endangering human life and property of petitioner and her family within ten days from the receipt of the order or to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate on or before 30.05.2008 to show cause why the said order shall not be made absolute. Grievance of petitioner is that neither has the respondent complied with the said order nor has he shown cause. The Sub Divisional Magistrate has not passed O.P(Crl.) No.572 of 2011 -: 2 :- any further order pursuant to Ext.P4, order. Leaned counsel submits that in such a situation Sub Divisional Magistrate was bound to make the conditional order absolute. Hence a direction is sought to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to pass appropriate final orders pursuant to Ext.P4, conditional order. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. It would appear that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has not passed any orders pursuant to Ext.P4, conditional order referred to above. Having initiated action under Sec.133 of the Code and passed Ext.P4, order the Sub Divisional Magistrate was bound to proceed in the matter further as provided under the relevant provisions of the Code. But that does not appear to have been done. Hence the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Alappuzha is directed to take necessary further action pursuant to Ext.P4, conditional order as expeditiously as possible and as provided under the Code. Original Petition is disposed of as above. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv