High Court Kerala High Court

P.M. Thankamani vs Sasidharan.T.K on 25 May, 2009

Kerala High Court
P.M. Thankamani vs Sasidharan.T.K on 25 May, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 202 of 2009()


1. P.M. THANKAMANI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SASIDHARAN.T.K,
                       ...       Respondent

2. T.E. RAVINDRAN,

3. T.K. SOMINI SUKUMARAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :25/05/2009

 O R D E R
                            THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
                           --------------------------------------
                             Crl.R.P.No.202 of 2009
                           --------------------------------------
                     Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009.

                                        ORDER

Order dated 28.10.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort

Kochi is under challenge in this revision at the instance of petitioner No.1 before

the Sub Divisional Magistrate.

2. Petitioner and two others preferred a complaint to the Sub

Divisional Magistrate alleging that a poopparuthi tree standing in the property of

respondent No.1 is causing serious danger and nuisance to the petitioner and

others, the tree obstructed vehicle movement through the adjoining pathway,

may fall over electric line and result in danger to the life and property of

petitioner and others. Sub Divisional Magistrate called for a report of the Village

Officer. In the meantime petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.19838 of 2008 for

expeditious disposal of the petition. Learned Single Judge of this Court as per

judgment dated 9.7.2008 directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate to dispose of

the petition within two weeks. Sub Divisional Magistrate after considering the

report of the Village Officer passed the impugned order making the conditional

order absolute and directed respondent No.1 to cut the branches of the tree

within ten days. Petitioner is not satisfied in that, there was no direction for

removal of the tree as such and challenges that order in this revision. Learned

Crl.R.P.No.202/2009

2

counsel submits that as the tree is in dangerous condition likely to fall down at

any time, Sub Divisional Magistrate ought to have directed cutting and removal

of the tree as such rather than its branches.

3. I am not going into the correctness of the order passed by the Sub

Divisional Magistrate as to whether the conditional order could have been made

absolute on the materials on record. Presently I am concerned only with the

question whether the Sub Divisional Magistrate should have directed cutting and

removal of the tree as such. Though petitioner and others alleged that tree as

such is standing in a dangerous condition, it is seen from the report of the

Village Officer that he has only stated that a branch of the tree is leaning

towards the house of petitioner. In the complaint filed before the Sub Divisional

Magistrate, petitioner has stated that the branches of the tree are crossing over

the electric line and during rainy season such branches may fall over electric

line causing danger to the petitioner and others. Though Village Officer stated

that either the tree or branches of the tree as such may be cut and removed, he

has not stated in what way the tree is in dangerous condition. Sub Divisional

Magistrate has also not recorded evidence in the matter. He has merely placed

reliance on the report of the Village Officer without complying with the provisions

of Section 138 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). The

conditional order issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 133 of

the Code only directs cutting and removal of the branch. That conditional order

is not under challenge at the instance of petitioner. Therefore, Sub Divisional

Crl.R.P.No.202/2009

3

Magistrate could not have directed cutting and removal of the tree as such on

the basis of the conditional order already issued.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner requests that the right

of the petitioner and others to file fresh petition for cutting and removal of the

tree may be left open. I make it clear that if circumstances so warranted

petitioner or other person having locus standi in the matter would be entitled to

do so if they are otherwise entitled to such a course.

With the above observation, revision petition is dismissed.

THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.

cks