IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2010 / 11TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 10999 OF 2010(O) ---------------------------------------- OS.174/2009 OF MUNSIFF COURT,KATTAPPANA .................... PETITIONER(S): DEFENDANT ---------------------------------------- M.N.PRAKASH, S/O.M.G.NARAYANA PILLAI, MULLASSERIL HOUSE, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.JOHN RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF ---------------------------------------- 1. PRASAD, S/O.SANKARAN, SOORYAKUNNEL NARIYAMPARA, AYYAPPANKOVIL VILLAGE. 2. N.T.SASI, S/O.THANKAPPAN, NEDUMANGATTU HOUSE, NARIYAMPARA, AYYAPPANKOVIL. ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE FOR R1.2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ---------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE FOREST DEPARTMENT AS AY-6922/97 DATED 18.7.1997 OF THE D.F.O. KOTTAYAM IN THE NAME OF SHRI ABRAHAM JOSEPH. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF LICENCE NO.B1-343/09 DATED 17.7.2009. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF K.S.E.B. DATED 17.7.2009. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF SSI REGISTRATION ON 16.6.2000 ISSUED BY INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF CONSENT DATED 10.8.2009 ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT DATED 27.10.2009. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF PETITION I.A. 276 OF 2010 DATED 18.2.2010. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 19.3.2010. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 24.3.2010. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 15.3.2010 IN W.P(C) NO.4266 OF 2010. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26.3.2010 IN I.A.NO.479 OF 2010 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.10999 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 01st day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is running an industry according to the petitioner, he having obtained licence and other permits from the authorities concerned. He is running a wood based industry in the suit property. But respondents, alleging that it is a rubber based industry having not obtained licence and is being run unathorisedly filed the suit for prohibitory injunction. An interim order of injunction was passed against petitioner that he shall not run the industry without proper licence. In the meantime there was an application for issue of a commission to inspect the property to ascertain whether in violation of the order of injunction petitioner is running the industry. Respondents filed I.A.No.479 of 2010 to issue direction to the Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property without notice to the petitioner. Learned Munsiff as per Ext.P11, order dated 26.03.2010 allowed the application. Learned Munsiff was of the view that if Advocate Commissioner inspect property with notice to petitioner he will stop running of the industry and claim that there is no violation of order of W.P(C) No.10999 of 2010 -: 2 :- injunction. That order is under challenge in this Writ Petition. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that petitioner has been running the industry from 1997 onwards on the strength of licence and other permits granted to him by the authorities concerned. According to the learned counsel there is no violation of order of injunction since that order is conditional in that restraint is only against running the industry without licence which the petitioner do possess. Learned counsel for respondents placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Achuthan v. Kunhipathumma (1967 KLT 326) to contend that there is nothing illegal in Commissioner inspecting property without prior notice to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel it is sufficient that Commissioner need give notice to the petitioner at the spot. 2. I am not at the question in this proceeding whether there is any violation of order of injunction or whether order of injunction prevented petitioner running the industry. Question is whether Advocate Commissioner should inspect the property without notice to the petitioner. Petitioner has entered appearance through counsel in the court below and hence he is entitled to get notice of all proceedings in the suit. At the same W.P(C) No.10999 of 2010 -: 3 :- time interest of respondents has also to be looked into. According to them if Advocate Commissioner gives prior notice to the petitioner it is possible for him to manage the situation and show that he has not violated order of injunction. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that the Advocate Commission can be directed to give notice to the petitioner at the spot before inspection is conducted. Resultantly, Writ Petition is disposed of directing that it is sufficient that Advocate Commissioner gives notice to the petitioner before inspection at the spot. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv