IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 29013 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.HAMSA, S/O.KUNHAYAMU HAJI, PALATHINKAL, UPPUKULAM P.O., EDATHANATTUKARA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.S.SUJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. AHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI, S/O.AYAMMATHUPPA HAJI, MADATHODI, UPPUKULAM P.O. 3. ABDU, S/O.MADATHODI UNNI MAMMU, UPPUKULAM P.O. 4. ENU HAJI, S/O.MADATHODI SAIDALI, UPPUKULAM P.O. 5. MARAKKAR, S/O.VELLENGARA SAIDALI, UPPUKULAM P.O. 6. MUHAMMED, S/O.PADUKUNDIL VALIYA KUNHAYAMMU, UPPUKULAM P.O. 7. ABOOBACKER, S/O.PADUKUNDIL AYAMMU, UPPUKULAM P.O. BY GP SMT.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).29013/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner, who claims to be the elected president of Uppukulam Masjid Manarul Hudha Mosque, Edathanattukara, had moved the Revenue Divisional Officer, the first respondent, complaining of the fight between two groups claiming management of the affairs of the said Mosque. As per Ext.P1, a compromise was entered into. According to the petitioner, subsequently when the affairs of the Management being run smoothly pursuant to Ext.P1, respondents 2 to 7 and others created a tense situation. They prepared a list of persons showing themselves as members of the Committee and the petitioner's signature was forcefully endorsed on a blank cheque. Petitioner brought this to the notice of the first respondent vide Ext.P2 reminding vide Ext.P3. Writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to take note of Exts.P2 and P3. W.P.(C).29013/2008 2 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that since Ext.P1 was submitted before the Revenue Divisional Officer, it would be open to the RDO to look into Exts.P2 and P3. If he finds that the circumstances are such that they warrant interference under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C, he shall proceed to do so. Otherwise he may issue a suitable reply to the petitioner. Needful shall be done within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Obviously if any action is proposed to be taken, then all concerned persons shall be given notice in this regard. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs