Loading...

Jose vs State Of Kerala on 13 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
Jose vs State Of Kerala on 13 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 26814 of 2010(B)


1. JOSE, VAHAPPILLY HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. YAKOB, VAHAPPILLY HOUSE,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. JOHNSON,VAZHAPPILLY HOUSE,

3. SECRETARY, KAIPARAMBU GRAMA PANCHAYATH

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.A.RAJAGOPALAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN(AMICUS CURIAE)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :13/09/2010

 O R D E R
                        P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
              -----------------------------------------
                   W.P(C).No.26814 of 2010
              -----------------------------------------
         Dated this the 13th day of September, 2010

                            JUDGMENT

In this writ petition the petitioners challenge Ext.P9 order

issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thrissur, Ext.P10 order

issued by the Sessions Judge, Thrissur upholding Ext.P9 and

Ext.P12 order issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thrissur on

5.8.2010 calling upon them to obey Ext.P9 order passed by the

Sub Divisional Magistrate.

2. Ext.P9 discloses that it is an order issued by the Sub

Divisional Magistrate, Thrissur under the provisions of section 133

of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By that order the petitioners

were directed to close down the pig farms conducted by them in

Kaiparamba Grama Panchayat. Aggrieved thereby they filed

Crl.R.P.No.39 of 2008 in the Court of Session, Thrissur. By

Ext.P10 order passed on 11.6.2010, the said revision petition was

dismissed. Consequently, when the piggery was not closed down,

the Sub Divisional Magistrate issued Ext.P12 order dated 5.8.2010

calling upon the petitioners to obey Ext.P9 order passed by him by

W.P(C).No.26814 of 2010
-:2:-

closing down the piggery. In this writ petition, the only relief

sought is to quash Exts.P9, P10 and P12 orders. In my opinion, if

the petitioners are aggrieved by Exts.P9 and P10 orders their

remedy is to challenge the same by filing an appropriate petition

under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The

petitioners cannot, in my opinion, canvass the correctness of

Exts.P9 and P10 orders by filing a writ petition under Article 226

of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed without

prejudice to the right of the petitioners to file a petition under

section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure canvassing the

correctness of Exts.P9 and P10 orders.

P.N.RAVINDRAN,
Judge.

ahg.

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

—————————

W.P(C).No.26814 of 2010

—————————-

JUDGMENT

13th September, 2010

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information