T.P. Mathew vs The Additional District … on 2 March, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 31476 of 2008(V)


1. T.P. MATHEW, COYAMKODE P.O., CHAYOTH,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

3. MOHAMMED FAROOK, S/O. THRIKKOT USMAN,

4. N.USMAN, KOYAPPARA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

 Dated :02/03/2009

 O R D E R
                              K.M.JOSEPH, J
                   ...........................................
                 WP(C).NO.          31476         OF 2008
                   ............................................
        DATED THIS THE             2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2009

                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges Ext.P2. Ext.P2 is an order passed

by the Magistrate, granting permission.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel appearing on behalf of third respondent, besides learned

government Pleader and standing counsel. Though service has

been completed on third and fourth respondents, no appearance

for additional 5th respondent.

3. Two proposals were made. Apparently, the first proposal

was found inconvenient and causing loss. Then the second

proposal involves drawing of line through the pathway of the

property of the petitioner and through the boundary of Falcon

Polymers, property of sri T.P.Mathew. It is specifically stated

that only the pathway portion of the property of the petitioner is

to be crossed and thereafter it passes through the side of the

property of Falcon Polymers and then through the compound wall

of the two properties. It is stated that in the eastern side, a

Wp(c)31476/2008 2

small portion passes through the property of T.P.Mathew. Falcon

Polymers, represented by third and fourth respondents, has

stated that they orally agree to the proposal. The said proposal

is found to be most convenient and suitable. Therefore both

proposals are seen considered and reasons are given for not

accepting the first proposal. In such circumstances, in judicial

review, I do not think it is for this court to substitute its view with

that of the authority. Learned counsel for third and fourth

respondents reiterates on behalf of Falcon Polymers that they

have no objection. In such circumstances, I find no reason to

interfere with the writ petition. Writ petition fails. The same is

dismissed. I.A.1920 of 2009 is also dismissed.

K.M.JOSEPH,
JUDGE

lgk