IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13607 of 2009(Q)
1. VIJAYA HARIPRASAD, MAMPRAKIZHAKKATHIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA.
... Respondent
2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :22/05/2009
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
W.P.(C).No.13607 OF 2009
===========================
Dated this the 22nd day of May,2009
JUDGMENT
Petitioner filed W.P.(C)8379/2009 for
adequate protection for conducting quarrying
and transport of laterate building stone, earth
and mud alleging interference and intervention
by the fourth respondent in the Writ Petition.
As per Ext.P1 order, the Division Bench
directed that if a written request is made by
the petitioner to the Sub Inspector of Police,
the third respondent in the Writ Petition,
against any physical obstruction caused to the
work carried out by him, the Sub Inspector
shall visit the premises and if he is satisfied
that such obstruction is caused, necessary
protection shall be afforded. It is also made
clear that petitioner shall ensure that the
tipper lorry carrying the load shall not be run
W.P.(C) 13607/2009 2
at high speed and the speed shall be limited to 35
k.m per hour and the road being a mud road,
petitioner shall sprinkle water on the road.
Ext.P1 order was passed on 24.3.2009. Subsequently
second respondent, the Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Chengannur, issued Ext.P2 preventive order under
section 144(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
prohibiting demolition of hills or filling up of
paddy fields for the period from 24.4.2009 to
31.5.2009. Ext.P2 order itself makes it absolutely
clear that the said preventive order is not valid
in respect of sunami works as well as works
sanctioned by the court. Petitioner filed this
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to quash Ext.P2 contending that it is in
violation of Ext.P1 judgment and also for a
direction not to implement Ext.P2 order in respect
of the work under Ext.P1 judgment.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were
W.P.(C) 13607/2009 3
heard.
3. As is clear from Ext.P2 order itself, the
preventive order is not valid in respect of the
works permitted by the court. Therefore Ext.P2
order cannot be in violation of Ext.P1 order passed
by this court, when Ext.P2 itself makes it clear
that it is not valid in respect of works sanctioned
by the court. Hence it is not necessary to give
any direction as sought for by the petitioner.
Writ Petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
W.P.(C).NO. /06
———————
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006