IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8691 of 2008(I)
1. KOCHUTHAZHATH JOSE @ JOSEPH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. CHELAKKATTU BASHEER, S/O.ALAVIKUTTY,
3. KANICHAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN
For Respondent :SRI.CIBI THOMAS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :19/06/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NO. 8691 OF 2008 I
====================
Dated this the 19th day of June, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The controversy in this writ petition is in relation to the piggery
owned by the petitioner and proceedings under Section 133 of Cr. P.C in
relation to the piggery. It is stated that the 2nd respondent raised a
complaint against the petitioner’s piggery and on receipt thereof, the 1st
respondent initiated proceedings under Section 133 of the Cr.Pc.
Meanwhile, petitioner filed a suit before the Munsiff’s Court, Kuthuparamba
as OS 189/06 in which Ext.P1 interim order of injunction was also obtained
against the Panchayat. In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent filed a writ
petition before this court essentially with the prayer for the closure of the
piggery. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment.
2. On the disposal of the writ petition as above, the petitioner
herein filed Ext.P5 before the 1st respondent, contending that the
proceedings under Section 133 cannot be continued any further. To this
representation, the 2nd respondent has filed Ext.P6, his objections. While
Exts. P5 and P6 are thus pending consideration of the 1st respondent, and
orders are yet to be passed, complaining that the 1st respondent is
WPC 8691/08
:2 :
proceeding with the proceedings under Section 133 of Cr.P.C, this writ
petition has been filed praying for a declaration that the 1st respondent has
no jurisdiction to decide the dispute and to prohibit him from proceeding
further.
3. I feel this matter has to primarily engage the attention of the
1st respondent before whom the above contentions have been raised by
the petitioner by filing Ext.P5 to which objections also have been filed.
4. Therefore, I direct that the 1st respondent shall take up and
consider Ext.P5 with notice to all concerned and pass appropriate orders
thereon. This shall be done by the 1st respondent as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this
judgment. It is directed that until a decision is rendered on Ext.P5 as
above, the interim order passed by this court staying further proceedings
before the Revenue Divisional Officer, will continue.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE.
Rp