IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 8TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30088 of 2010(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- VIKRAMAN PILLAI, PLAVILAMELATHIL VEEDU, VETTILATHAZHAM, DECENT JUNCTION, THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE/ REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM-691 013. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THRIKKOVILVATTAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT- 691 001. 3. BALACHANDRAN PILLAI, S/O. KOCHAPPAN PILLAI, PLAVILAVADAKKATHIL VEEDU, VETTILATHAZHAM, THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 577. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.30088 of 2010 (I) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 30th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T By Ext.P4 order of the 1st respondent, the request of the petitioner to initiate 133 proceedings against the 3rd respondent has been declined. It is this order, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. A reading of Ext.P4 order shows that the reason stated is that the dispute between the parties is purely a civil dispute and it is therefore that the 1st respondent has passed such an order. It is the correctness of this order, which is called in question, in this writ petition. 3. Admittedly, the right over a road is the issue in dispute, which is a dispute of Civil nature. Having regard to the nature of the dispute, I am inclined to think that the view taken in Ext.P4 order cannot be faulted. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg