Authorities must expeditiously implement final orders passed under Section 133 CrPC to remove illegal encroachments.

The petitioner, a resident of Village Alapur, District Morena, sought the removal of an illegal encroachment (a wall and toilet) on a public pathway (Survey No. 1531) that provides access to his agricultural land

Earlier, in Case No. 07/2021, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) passed a final order on 30.12.2022 under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C., directing local authorities and the police to remove the encroachment within five days

Despite this order attaining finality, it remained unimplemented. The petitioner previously filed MCRC No. 9604/2024, where the Court observed on 06.02.2025 that the petitioner could pursue remedies under Sections 135 and 136 of the Cr.P.C.

Consequently, the petitioner submitted a representation/application dated 14.02.2025 to respondent No. 3 (SDM), which remained pending, leading to the filing of this Writ Petition seeking a direction for its disposal and implementation of the 2022 order

1. Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued to compel the respondent authority to decide the pending representation regarding the non-execution of a final order passed under Section 133 Cr.P.C.

2. Whether the authorities are bound to conclude proceedings under Sections 135 and 136 Cr.P.C. to ensure the removal of public nuisances/encroachments once a final order is passed

The court's decision is centered on the enforcement mechanisms of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) [now BNSS], specifically Section 133 regarding the removal of public nuisances and obstructions

It further relies on Sections 135 and 136 of the Cr.P.C., which prescribe the procedure for a person to obey the order or show cause, and the penalties/consequences for failing to comply with a lawful order made absolute

The court also exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ensure the administrative authorities perform their statutory duties

The court noted that a competent authority (SDM) had already adjudicated the matter in 2022 and determined that an illegal encroachment existed on a public road

The court highlighted that although the order had attained finality, the administrative machinery failed to execute it for several years, causing continued hardship to the petitioner

Applying the liberty granted in a previous judicial order (MCRC No. 9604/2024), the court observed that since the petitioner had already invoked the alternative remedy by filing a representation for action under Sections 135 and 136 Cr.P.C., the respondent No. 3 was duty-bound to consider and decide that application

Given the limited prayer for a time-bound disposal and the State’s lack of objection, the court found it fit to mandate a structured timeline for the authority to act

The court ordered that the decision must be made through a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with the law, to ensure the implementation of the prior order dated 30.12.2022