SUNNY JOSEPH Vs. VILLAGE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS who are respondents before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thiruvalla challenge Annexure-VI, order dated 10.02.2011 whereby they were directed to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 16.02.2011 "and shall pay an interim bond of `.50,000/- as self bank guarantee within 15 days of receipt".

(2.) PETITIONERS were initially served with Annexure-IV, notice dated 29 January, 2011 alleging that they are involved in illegal filling of paddy land situated in Kunnamthanam Village, such activities are reported to be carried out even during late night with the help of antisocial elements threatening the neighbours and revenue officials in case of obstruction and that petitioners have informers and escorts gathered at junction points to watch and report the arrival of revenue officials. The Sub Divisional Magistrate for the said reason thought that petitioners caused breach of public peace and tranquility by resorting to the above tactics and there is a definite chance that activities of petitioners will cause breach of peace and disturb public tranquility in future also. Accordingly Annexure-IV, notice was issued to the petitioners to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 07.02.2011 at 11 a.m and show cause why they shall not be required to execute a bond with two solvent sureties for the sum of Rupees One Lakh each for keeping peace or good behaviour for a period of one year. Pursuant to that notice, petitioners say, that they appeared before the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 07.02.2011 and requested time to file objection to show cause notice but, without granting opportunity to them to file their objection the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed Annexure-VI, order referred to above which is under challenge in this proceeding. Learned counsel submitted that apart from the fact that petitioners were not given sufficient time to show cause as they were asked in Annexure-IV, notice, the Sub Divisional Magistrate could not direct petitioners to execute a bond as directed in Annexure-VI since there was no proceeding against petitioners under Secs.108, 109 or 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code"). Annexure-VI, order is illegal, it is contended. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it was after petitioners were given a personal hearing that Annexure-VI, order was passed.

(3.) I found that petitioners should have been given sufficient time to show cause against execution of bond as directed in Annexure-IV, notice but that was not done. In view of that, I am inclined to set aside Annexure-VI, order. Resultantly Annexure-VI, order dated 10.02.2011 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thiruvalla in proceeding No.A3- 2831/10 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Sub Divisional Magistrate for fresh decision after giving petitioners reasonable time to show cause against Annexure-IV, notice.