IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21096 of 2009(F)
1. SULAIMAN, AGED 44 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
3. KUTTIPULIYAN PATHUMMA,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :31/07/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No.21096 of 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 31st July,2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner and the 3rd respondent are neighbours.
Apparently, there is a dispute between the two relating to
the pathway lying adjacent to the petitioner’s property.
Third respondent has approached the RDO, as evidenced
by Ext P3 complaint. It seems that the RDO sought for an
enquiry into the complaint. But thereupon, the 1st
respondent the S.I of Police proceeded to issue Ext.P4,
wherein, citing the pendency of the complaint before the
RDO, he has directed the petitioner to stop the
construction of the compound wall. Enquiry as such has
been done by the Village Officer, who has forwarded Ext.P5
report.
2. It is open to the RDO to take appropriate action,
but obviously the S.I of Police has no jurisdiction to pass
an order in the nature of Ext.P4.
3. On production of a copy of this judgment along
with copy of the writ petition before the RDO, he shall pass
an order on Ext.P3 complaint either by way of preliminary
W.P ( C) No.21096 of 2009
2
order under Sec. 133 of the Cr.PC or otherwise dropping
the same, within two weeks thereof. Obviously Ext.P4 shall
be subject to further orders to be passed by the RDO. The
RDO shall issue notice to the complainant also before
passing an order in the manner aforementioned.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
(V.GIRI, JUDGE)
ma
