Order.- On a complaint made by the respondent to the Executive First Class Magistrate, Puttur, proceedings were commenced under section 133 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner was called upon by a notice issued by the Magistrate to be present in his Court on 19th September, 1962, to show cause. The complaint made by the respondent who is a neighbour of the petitioner was that there was an old cocoanut tree in a tottering condition on the premises of the petitioner which was likely to fall and thereby cause injury to him. The respondent therefore wanted an order under Chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the removal of the tree. After the petitioner appeared before the Magistrate, the Magistrate recorded evidence, and on 29th October, 1962 he made what I consider to be a strange order. He came to the conclusion that the existence of the tree on the petitioner’s premises was dangerous to the safety of the respondent and directed the petitioner to remove the tree within 30 days from the date of the order. The petitioner was also intimated that non-compliance of the direction would entail action under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Janardan appearing for the petitioner contends that the order made by the Magistrate is defective for two reasons. The first submission made was that the Magistrate did not have power under section 133, Code of Criminal Procedure to order the removal of a tree which was not situate in a public place and which was not likely to cause danger to the public.This argument, it is clear, is entirely groundless since paragraph 5 of sub-section (1) of section 133, Code of Criminal Procedure is the clearest answer to it. That paragraph reads: “that any building, tent or structure or any tree is in such a condition that it is likely to fall and thereby cause injury to persons living or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing by, and that in consequence the removal, repair support of such building, tent or structure or the removal or support of such tree, is necessary, or - .... such Magistrate may make a conditional order requiring the person causing such obstruction, or nuisance or carrying on such trade or occupation, or keeping any such goods or merchandise, or owning, possessing or controlling such building, tent, structure, substance, tank, well or excavation, or owning or possessing such animal or tree, within a time to be fixed in the order, to remove such obstruction or nuisance.” It is clear from this part of sub-section (1) of section 133 that if a tree owned by a person is likely to fall and there is thus the likelihood of injury to persons living in the neighbourhood, its removal can be ordered under its provisions. It is not necessary for an order to be made under sub-section (1) of section 133 that it should he established that the tree was likely to cause danger to the members of the public and it is enough if there is the likelihood of danger to the neighbours of whom the respondent was one. The order of the Magistrate is this case cannot therefore be subjected to the criticism that it was not within his competence. But it was next contended by Mr. Janardan that even so, the form in which the Magistrate made his order is unsupportable. It was said that the only order that a Magistrate may make under section 133 (1) is a conditional order against which opportunity should be afforded to the person against whom the order is made, to. contest its correctness. This argument rests on the last paragraph of sub-section (1) of section 133 which requires the Magistrate to afford an opportunity to the person against whom an order is made to appear before the Magistrate for that purpose at a time and place to be fixed by the conditional order. What the Magistrate could have therefore done in this case was only to make a conditional order directing the petitioner to remove the tree and to intimate the petitioner by his order that if the petitioner objected to remove the tree in that way, he should appear before him or some other Magistrate of the First or Second class at a time and place to be fixed by the order and to move to have the order set aside or modified in the manner provided in section 133. This, the Magistrate did not do and, on the contrary, what he did was to intimate the petitioner that if he did not obey the order he would be subjected to proceedings under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. The order in the form in which it was made by the Magistrate cannot therefore be supported. But there is nothing which prevents me from treating the order which he made as a conditional order. That is what I do. I now direct the Magistrate to follow the procedure permitted by the last paragraph of sub-section (1) of section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and send intimation to the petitioner that if he objects to the removal of the tree directed by the conditional order, to appear and to move to have the order set aside or modified according to law. The Magistrate will now proceed to do so. S.V.S. ----- Order accordingly.