IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29042 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RIJU MUKUNDAN, S/O.MUKUNDAN, THEVARUTHOPPU VEEDU, NEAR T.B.JUNCTION, ATTINGAL P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR SRI.P.BANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, ATTINGAL. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL CIRCLE, ATTINGAL P.O 3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ATTINGAL. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 5. P.T.RAMER, S/O.THIRUKODI NADAR, SELVI VESSELS, PARVATHIPURAM GRAMOM ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 29042 OF 2008-G ----------------------------------------- Dated 30th September, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is the owner of a shop room bearing No.XI/311 of Attingal Municipality. He is also the owner of two other adjacent rooms bearing door Nos. XI/312 and XI/313. The 5th respondent herein is the tenant of the shop room bearing No.XI/311. Since the said tenant was running a business without taking licence from the Municipality, the officers of the Municipality locked and sealed the premises. The petitioner moved this Court for handing over the key of that room to him by the Municipality. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court, by Ext.P1 judgment. This Court noticed the submission of the Municipality that the key has already been handed over to the tenant and he is in possession of it. In view of the said position, the writ petition was disposed of without granting any relief to the petitioner. But, it was observed that as the owner of the room, he may exercise his rights. The petitioner has understood that observation as enabling him WPC 29042/08 2 to demolish the shop room and reconstruct it. This is evident from Exts.P1 and P2 representations filed by him before the police. The tenant is repairing the shop room to re-start his business. The petitioner alleges, the same is being done with the support of the police. The petitioner wants to remove the support of the police, so that he can enter the room and take possession of it, as allegedly permitted by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment. We feel that if the police do not support the petitioner to take possession of the shop room in the light of Ext.P1 judgment, the same cannot be described as police harassment. This Writ Petition, going by the pleadings, especially those relating to the legal effect of the observation in Ext.P1, which the petitioner has stated in Exts.P2 and P3, is an abuse of the process of court. Accordingly, it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/