IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2011 / 17TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20250 of 2011(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- VARGHESE, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, PULICKAL HOUSE, ANICKAD KARA, ANICKAD VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN, SRI.JAISON PALIYIL. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM- 686 001. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PONKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT- 686 001. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALLICKATHODU POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM- 686 001. 4. JIGI ANCHANI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, ANCHANI HOUSE, ANICKAD P.O., ANICKAD VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM- 686 503. 5. PIOUS MANNANAL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, MANNANAL HOUSE AKALAKUNNAM VILLAGE, MATTAKARA POST, KOTTAYAM- 686 504. 6. K.G. MADHUKUMAR KAPPEPARAMBIL AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, KAPPEPARAMBIL HOUSE, ANICKAD VILLAGE, ANICKAD P.O, KOOROPPADA, KOTTAYAM- 686 503. 7. SHIVAJI KALLAI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, KALLAI HOUSE, ANICKAD VILLAGE, ANICKAD P.O, PALLICKATHODU PANCHAYATH, KOTTAYAM- 686 503. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M. CHARISMA. R4 TO R7 BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 20250 of 2011(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 18/07/2011. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.347/2011. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 20/07/2011. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 20/07/2011. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.20250 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. Eventhough Sri.Liji J.Vadakkedam learned counsel entered appearance on behalf of R4 to R6, sought for time to file a detailed counter affidavit, we are not inclined to grant time. We notice that an interim order was passed by us on 25.7.2011. According to us, that interim order grants to the petitioner all the reliefs that the petitioner can legitimately prayed for. The interim order will continue. The writ petition is disposed of and at the same time we direct the petitioner not to interfere with the execution of work entrusted by the Public Works Department to the 5th respondent contractor. This judgment granting protection to the petitioner will not enable him to interfere with the execution of such work. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/