K. G. THILAKAN Vs. TAHSILDAR, MUKUNDAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come to this Court aggrieved by Ext. P3 order. The Executive Magistrate had passed a conditional order under S.133 of the CrPC directing the petitioner to remove the obstruction to a pathway or show cause. On receipt of that order, a copy of which is produced as Ext. P3, the petitioner along with his counsel appeared before the Executive Magistrate. Ext. P2 objection/counter was filed by the petitioner denying the existence of the public right in respect of the pathway. Thereupon, Ext. P3 order has been passed by the Executive Magistrate, in which it is stated that in as much as the vakkalat filed by the counsel for the petitioner does not bear the requisite stamps, the objection filed is rejected.

(2.) To say the least, the procedure adopted is not correct. If proper stamps have not been affixed in the vakkalat filed, the counsel will not be able to appear and plead on behalf of the petitioner. But the objections filed by the petitioner cannot obviously be rejected on that ground.

(3.) In the result, Ext. P3 order is set aside. The objections filed by the petitioner shall be considered by the Executive Magistrate. The petitioner shall be questioned under S.136 CrPC on the next date of posting. Thereafter, if necessary, the requisite enquiry under S.137 CrPC shall be conducted and an appropriate order passed under S.137(2) CrPC. Depending on such order that may be passed under S.137(2) CrPC, if necessary the Executive Magistrate shall proceed to conduct a further enquiry under S.138 CrPC and pass appropriate final orders.