IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27502 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. KADEEJABI,W/O.ABU, AGED 60,MATHILAKATH HOUSE,II/340, WARD NO.7 (NEW),MUTHUVATTOOR VILLAGE, CHAVAKKADU. 2. SUBRAMANIAM,S/O.VALA SANKURU, AGED 53,VALA HOUSE,WARD NO.7 (NEW), MUTHUVATTOOR VILLAGE,CHAVAKKADU. BY ADV. M/S.VARGHESE & JACOB SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. SRI.P.J.VINOD JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SECRETARY, CHAVAKKADU MUNICIPALITY, CHAVAKKADU,THRISSUR. 2. ABOOBACKER,W/O.ABU, AGED 60,THERUVATHU HOUSE,WARD NO.7 (NEW), MUTHUVATTOOR VILLAGE,CHAVAKKADU. 3. PATHUMOL,W/O.ABOOBACKER, AGED 56,THERUVATHU HOUSE,WARD NO.7 (NEW), MUTHUVATTOOR VILLAGE,CHAVAKKADU. 4. SHAMIR,S/O.ABOOBACKER, AGED 27,THERUVATHU HOUSE,WARD NO.7 (NEW), MUTHUVATTOOR VILLAGE,CHAVAKKADU. 5. C.I.OF POLICE,CHAVAKKADU. R1 BY ADV.S.SUJIN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.27502 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the municipality. Notice to the other respondents dispensed with, preserving their right for re-hearing of the matter, if aggrieved by the order being passed hereunder. The petitioners state that Ext.P5 stop memo is not being enforced. It is true that the petitioners came to this Court and obtained Ext.P8, wherein, it was recorded that the stop memo is still in force and that no construction is going on. Now, they want the status quo available by that procedure to be continued. I am afraid that why this is not possible. As allegedly pointed out by the learned counsel for the municipality, the civil court has issued Ext.P9 order, refusing the injunction sought for by the writ petitioners and others while granting an order of temporary injunction in favour of the opposite party. Under such circumstances, it is impermissible for this Court to compel the WPC.27502/09 Page numbers municipality to enforce its stop memo. This is more particularly so because the issue relates to assertion by the petitioners as to the existence of a pathway which, going by Ext.P9, has been found against. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the petitioners' right to seek relief from the competent civil court. It is further ordered that the municipality will do the needful in terms of the orders of the civil court. All issues on merits are left open. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.5/10.