IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 19318 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.PRABHAVATHY, RATHNA BHAVAN, THOPPINAKOM, VALIYATHURA, VALLAKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POONTHURA. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALIYATHURA POLICE STATION. 4. CHANDRAKUMAR, KAVINCHERI VEEDU, VADAKKEVILA, PALLIMUKKU P.O., KOLLAM. 5. SUDHA, FROM 849, HATSTAL, DDA, JANATHA FLAT, NEW DELHI. 6. SANTHA, MAYOOR VIHAR, FACE-3, DELHI-96. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) No.19318 of 2009 EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.4.2003 ISSUED BY THE COURT OF LAND TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN A.A.No.32/04 BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY ` (AR), ALAPPUZHA. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF C.R.P.NO.38/2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 24.11.2008. EXT.P4 COPY OF I.A.NO.61/2009 IN C.R.P.NO.38/2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THIS COURT DATED 24.11.2008 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 4.7.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.19318 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This writ petition is filed alleging police harassment. We have granted an interim direction not to evict the petitioner forcibly, for a period of two weeks. 2. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the police is now acting on the basis of an order passed by the District Collector. If so, unless that order is challenged in accordance with law, and so long as the same is in force, it cannot be said that there is any harassment as such. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to challenge the order passed by the District Collector. No such permission is required, if he is otherwise entitled to. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed W.P.(C) No.19318 of 2009 2 without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to take appropriate remedies as are available under law. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE. nj.