ORDER S.N. Katju, J. - This is a reference made by the Civil and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur recommending that proceedings u/s 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the removal of a Khokha (temporary structure) under reference be set aside. 2. An application u/s 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the Assistant Engineer PWD for the removal of a wooden stall (Khokha) which exists near a footpath on the railway station road crossing, Saharanpur. The opposite party before the City Magistrate was Balbir Singh. He being a refugee from Punjab was permitted to construct a Khokha near the site in suit in 1950 on the condition that he would vacate the site and remove the Khokha within thirty days of a written notice by the PWD and that he would not hold it continuously for a period of more than one year from the date of the grant. The said Khofyha continued to exist for more than ten years. It was sought to be removed for the first time in 1962 by the Municipal Board, Saharanpur by taking proceedings against the Applicant u/s 299 of the UP Municipalities Act. The Applicant did not remove the Khokha and he was prosecuted and convicted by the trial court. He was, however, acquitted on appeal by the Sessions Judge. Thereafter he brought a suit for permanent injunction in the court of the Civil Judge, Saharanpur which was decreed on 30-9-1963. An appeal against the aforesaid decision was dismissed by the District judge on 5-3-65 and the Municipal Board was restrained from taking action u/s 265 of the UP Municipalities Act for the demolition of the said Khokha. 3. Subsequently the Assistant Engineer, PWD, filed an Application u/s 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the removal of the aforesaid Khokha in the court of the District Magistrate, Saharanpur on the allegation that there was encroachment by the Applicant on the public road. The Applicant objected that the Khokha was in existence for the last 15 years and it did not cause any obstruction to the public pathway and therefore, it could not be removed Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application had been transferred to the City Magistrate for disposal. He found that there was no evidence in support of the Applicant's denial of the public right of way over the site in dispute. The application had been transferred to the City Magistrate for disposal. He found that there was no evidence in support of the Applicant's denial of the public right of way over the site in dispute. Ha directed the case to proceed u/s 137 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Aggrieved from the aforesaid order Balbir Singh filed an application in revision before the court below. It allowed the revision and directed that the record of the case be submitted to this Court with the recommendation that the proceedings u/s 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the removal of the said Khokha of Balbir Singh be set aside. 4. When the reference came before me earlier I referred to the following observations of my brother D.S. Mathur in Asharfi Lal v. State through the Collector Kanpur 1964 AWR 244 : If encroachments were made more than 10 years back and such encroachments can be ordered to be removed in a summary proceeding u/s 133 Code of Criminal Procedure only if there exists an urgency for the removal of the obstruction and if the encroachments are not removed forthwith the public shall suffer an irreparable injury. But I expressed the view that the mere fact that the obstruction and encroachments have existed since the last 15 years by itself is not sufficient to prevent proceedings u/s 133 Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. The material question in such a case is whether it is necessary that the unlawful obstruction and encroachments complained of should be removed. In the present case Balbir Singh was said to have encroached on the PWD road land at a crossing near the Saharanpur railway Station. The Civil and Sessions Judge had not in his order given the width of the road or the width of the footpath and the extant of traffic on the road. It said: It is a matter of common knowledge that all roads are not broad enough to meet the rush of traffic. Any encroachment on the road is likely to bring the risk of accident and if it is found in public interest that the road and the footpath etc. should be cleared of obstruction, then the mere fact that there are encroachments on it for some years could not stand in the way of action being taken against the persons who have made unlawful encroachment.... should be cleared of obstruction, then the mere fact that there are encroachments on it for some years could not stand in the way of action being taken against the persons who have made unlawful encroachment.... I directed that the court below should consider the question of urgency in the light of the aforesaid circumstances and record its findings on the said question. The City Magistrate made a spot inspection of the site of the Khokha in dispute. He observed: A finding about the question of urgency can only be given regarding the circumstances obtaining at the time of impaction. There is a sharp band between station road and Ghantaghar road and the presence of Khokhas definitely causes danger to the vehicular traffic which is considerable in extent because of existence of two bus stands near the injunction. However the presence of Khokha by itself would not be significant as it is not a big structure. The inspection note shows that there are a number of Khokhas on either side of the Khokha in question. All these khokhas taken together cause danger to the traffic. The presence of electric and telephone poles is not of much importance as they do not obstruct the view near the sharp end. It is a matter of common knowledge that most of the existing old roads are not broad enough at present to meet the requirements of the heavy traffic that passes on them. They need broadening to avoid inconvenience to the passing traffic and further to ensure public safety. If there is encroachment on land on either side of the road which is part of the road itself, then the mere fact that such encroachments had existed on it for 15 years or longer is by itself not sufficient to prevent action being taken u/s 133 off the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. The question of urgency has be considered in the light of the present day needs. If a situation which is either fraught with danger or nuisance has been allowed to continue for 15 years that by itself can be no ground for not removing it to ensure public safety and welfare. 6. The question of urgency has be considered in the light of the present day needs. If a situation which is either fraught with danger or nuisance has been allowed to continue for 15 years that by itself can be no ground for not removing it to ensure public safety and welfare. That is a matter primarily for the consideration of the authorities concerned and if they think that public interest requires the removal of such encroachments, then in that case resort could be had to summary action u/s 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Urgency means the necessity of taking immediate action. Urgency will not disappear if for some reason action was not taken for several years. If the exigency of the situation requires that prompt action should be taken in the interest of public safety and welfare, then the action taken would fall within the ambit of urgency. If a Magistrate has to exercise his discretion in ordering the removal of an unlawful obstruction, it will be in the interest of public safety. 7. Learned Counsel for the Applicant contended that there are some other Khokhas adjacent to the Khokha in dispute. It is for the Magistrate concerned to decide whether the other Khokhas should also be removed or not. The mere fact however that only the removal of one of so many Khokhas has been ordered is by itself no ground to vitiate the order. It may be that the order for the removal of the Khoka in dispute is only a first step and orders for the removal of the remaining Khokhas will also follow. Any way it is a matter for the Magistrate concerned. 8. I reject the reference made by the learned Civil and Sessions Judge and direct that the revision under reference be dismissed. The order of the City Magistrate, Saharanpur, which was assailed in revision before the learned Civil and Sessions Judge is maintained. The reference is answered accordingly.