S.Mohammed Farook v. Ameer Hamza
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/29TH MAGHA, 1936 IN CRRP 76/2014 of D.C & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD IN MC 188/2014 of SUB DVL.MAGISTRATE,PALAKKAD PETITIONER(S):
S.MOHAMMED FAROOK AGED 56 YEARS S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, ATHIKKODE, KOZHINJAMPPARA P.O. PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN: 678 554.
BY ADVS.SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.Y.JAFAR KHAN RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. AMEER HAMZA, AGED 62 YEARS S/O.SHEIK MUHAMMED ROWTHER, ATHIKODE PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN: 678 553.
2. MUHAMMED THASTHEER,, AGED 35 YEARS S/O.AMEER HAMSA, ATHIKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN: 678 553.
3. SHAHUL HAMEED,, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED HANEEFA ROWTHER, PALLIMEDU, ATHIKODE PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN: 678 553.
4. FATHIMA BEEVI,, AGED 35 YEARS W/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, PALLIMEDU, ATHIKODE PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN: 678 553.
5. AYISHA,, AGED 65 YEARS W/O.ADAM MUHAMMED, VENTHAPALAYAM, ATHIKODE PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN: 678 553
6. ABDUL AJEES,, AGED 65 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED ROWTHER, KOOTUPATHA, ATHIKODE PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN: 678 553.
7. ABDUL SALAM, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMED ROWTHER, ATHIKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN 678553
8. ABDU UBAID, AGED 42 YEARS S/O MUHAMMED HAMSA, ATHIKODE PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN- 678553
9. SIDHIQUE, S/O MUHAMMED HAMSA, AGED 48 YEARS ATHIKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN 678553
10. SALMAN PARIS AGED 35 YEARS, S/O KAJA HUSSAIN PALLIMEDU, ATHIKODE PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678553
11. SECRETARY KOZHINJAMPARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT KOZHINJAMPARA - 678554 PALAKKAD DISTRICT
12. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM KOCHI - 682018 R12 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- A1: TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN M.C NO.188/2014 DATED 4/11/2014 PASSED BY SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD.
A2: TRUE COPY OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.76/2014 DATED 24/11/2014 FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 TO 10 BEFORE THE SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD A3: TRUE COPY OF CRIMINAL M.P NO.3684/2014 IN CRL.R.P NO.76/2014 DATED 2/11/2014 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 10 BEFORE THE SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD A4: TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION NO.7(7) DATED 9/7/2012 OF KOZHINJAMPARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT A5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, QUALITY CONTROL OF KERALA WATER AUTHORITY DATED 12/9/2014.
A6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 8/7/2014 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOZHINJAMPARA AND OBTAINED BY THE PETITOINER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT A7: TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 5/5/2014 OF THE MEDICAL OFFICER, P.H.C. VANNAMADA RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE sab
P.UBAID, J.
------------------------- --------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2015.
O R D E R
A revision petition now pending before the Court of Session, Palakkad is a subject matter of this proceeding brought under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In a proceeding brought under Section 133 Cr.P.C, the Sub Divisional Magistrate Palakkad, in exercise of his powers as Executive Magistrate directed the respondents 1 to 10 to close down a farm on the ground of public nuisance. The said order passed under Section 138 Cr.P.C is under challenge in revision before the Sessions Court. The petitioner now seeks two reliefs in this proceeding. One is to direct the Court of Session to implead him as a party in the revision, and the other is to direct the Court of Session to dispose of the revision petition within a time frame. As regards the first prayer, nothing can be done by this court. If the petitioner wants to be heard in the proceeding, he will have to approach the Court of Session itself with necessary application. If his junction is absolutely necessary for
a just decision, it will definitely be considered by the court of Session. This court cannot intrude into the revision process, and direct the court below to implead the petitioner as party in the revision. As regards the second prayer also this court finds that such a time frame cannot be now fixed by the court. The petitioner has no right or locus standi to make a request for speedy and expeditious disposal of the revision petition. No doubt, the matter involves some urgency, and the dispute requires consideration at the earliest, because elements of public nuisance are very much involved in the dispute. In such a situation, the court of Session will have to take a decision expeditiously in the revision brought by the respondents against the order passed by the Executive Magistrate under Section 138 Cr.P.C. Though a direction for a time bound disposal is inappropriate here, the court below can be directed to dispose of the matter at the earliest, and with such a direction this petition can be closed.
In the result, this CrlM.C is closed, with a direction to the Court of Session, Palakkad (the learned Principal Sessions Judge or the Additional Sessions Judge hearing the matter), that Crl. Revision petition No. 76 of 2014 shall be heard and disposed of at the earliest, on a consideration of the issue of
public nuisance involved in the lis.
P.UBAID, JUDGE sab