P. MANICKAM Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case, the petitioners have come forward to challenge a preliminary order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer -cum- Sub Divisional Magistrate, Usilampatti, dated 03.08.2012. The said order came to be passed in terms of Section 133(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The property that is described is an elevated platform put up in the Grama natham poramboke in Mekkilarpatti coming under Usilampatti Taluk. The Revenue Divisional Officer, exercising her power under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, passed an order stating that the elevated platform is unnecessarily creating problem between two groups in respect of the public property of Panchayat and there is likelihood of breach of public order and considering the same, she exercised the power and directed that the property should be kept as a public property of the Panchayat until further orders and the parties were directed to appear before her on 13.08.2012 at 04.00 p.m. The contesting parties were also directed to produce appropriate documents and file statements either in person or through counsel.

(2.) PURSUANT to the impugned order, the petitioners gave a reply statement dated 16.08.2012. In the reply statement, the petitioners stated that the elevated platform in the said property was built after obtaining necessary approval from the Block Development Officer, Usilampatti Panchayat Union on 28.09.2010 and it is a very small construction. The public can sit in the platform and read daily newspapers and also discuss the affairs of public interest. The said platform do not give any nuisance to the public and there is no obstruction to traffic. It is only because of the old rivalries, complaints have been made. Persons, who gave complaints and the petitioners are rivals in the Panchayat elections and only because of the political animosity and with a view to demolish the platform, the complainant has made a false statement and, therefore, the Sub Divisional Magistrate was requested to retain the said structure for the use of public. The photocopies also produced in the typed-set of papers showing that the platform is on the one side of the street and certain persons are sitting there and reading newspapers.

(3.) UNDER the said circumstances, this Court do not think that any case is made out to interfere at the stage of a conditional order passed under Section 133(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and even assuming, final orders are passed under Section 133(1), there are provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure to revise such orders. Therefore, there is no case made out to interfere with the same. Hence, the Writ Petition will stand dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.