High Court Kerala High Court

K.P.Madhavan Pillai vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 26 August, 2008

Kerala High Court
K.P.Madhavan Pillai vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 26 August, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 37383 of 2007(A)


1. K.P.MADHAVAN PILLAI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. PRABHAKARAN PILLAY,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :26/08/2008

 O R D E R
                             R.BASANT, J
                      ------------------------------------
                    W.P(C).No.37383 of 2007
                     -------------------------------------
              Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008

                           J U D G M E N T

Petitioner had come to this Court with a grievance that the

final order passed in proceedings under Chapter XB of the Code

of Criminal Procedure and under Section 138 Cr.P.C is not being

executed by the authorities. Report was called for and it is now

reported and very evident that the order, non execution of which

is complained of, has been set aside by the learned Sessions

Judge, Pathanamthitta as per order dt.3.3.2000 in Revision

Petition No.25 of 1994. It was then pointed out that if such an

order has been passed by the court of revision, the matter must

be disposed of afresh by the Sub Divisional Magistrate.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

now the Sub Divisional Magistrate has already disposed of the

M.C as per order dated 09.07.2008. Thus M.C.No.90 of 1993,

pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Adoor, has now

been disposed of against the petitioner.

W.P(C).No.37383 of 2007 2

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner now submits

that no further directions are, in these circumstances, necessary

in this Writ Petition and this Writ Petition may now be closed

without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to assail the said

order dt.09.07.08 in M.C.No.90 of 1993. The request is

accepted.

4. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances,

dismissed. I make it clear that there shall be no fetter on the

right of the petitioner to challenge the said order dated 09.07.08

in M.C.No.90 of 1993, on account of the dismissal of this Writ

Petition.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-

W.P(C).No.37383 of 2007 3

R.BASANT, J

————————————
W.P(C).No.37383 of 2007

————————————-

Dated this the 18th day of December, 2007

ORDER

The short grievance of the petitioner is that the conditional

order Ext.P3, which was later made absolute by Ext.P4 order by

the 1st respondent, is not being executed in spite of the repeated

request of the petitioner.

2. Notice given. The learned Public Prosecutor shall take

instructions from the 1st respondent. Have Exts.P6, P8 and P9

been received ? If so, what, if any, is the action taken on such

petitions ? I need only mention that I expect the learned Sub

Divisional Magistrate to take appropriate action expeditiously for

execution of the order passed-Ext.P4, unless there be any legal

impediment for the same.

Furnish a copy of this order to the learned Public

Prosecutor.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

W.P(C).No.37383 of 2007 4

rtr/-