IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31753 of 2009(O) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. UMESHAPAI, S/O. LATE RAGHUNATHA PAI, 60 YEARS, PAI GARDEN, P H C CROSS ROAD, POST KUMBLA, KOIPADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK. 2. K. ASHOKA BHAT, S/O. LATE KESHAVA BHAT, MUKYAPRANA TEMPLE, GUDDEMUTT, RESIDING AT SHEDIKAVU, POST KUMBLA, KOIPADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, VIDYANAGARA POST, KASARAGOD TALUK. 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER HR & CD, KANHANGAD, POST KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DIST. 3. GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KUMBLA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL, KOIPADY VILLAGE, POST KUMBLA. 4. ANDUNHI HAJI, S/O. IBRAHIM MASTER, CHIPPER CHIRATHADKA HOUSE, POST AMMERI, CHIPPER VILLAGE, (VIA) PAIVALIKE, KASARAGOD TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31753 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S No. 308 of 2009 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kasargode. Suit is for permanent prohibitory injunction, and the respondents are the defendants. Ext.P1 is the copy of the plaint. The case canvassed by the petitioners is that an arattu procession from a local temple passed through a maidan known as Gandhi Maidan for the last several years and now attempts are being made to put up some constructions in the maidan which would eventually prevent the procession from being taken through that maidan. The first defendant is the State, second defendant the Commissioner of H.R & C.E, third defendant a Government High School represented by its principal in the suit and fourth defendant the contractor who has taken the contract W.P.(C).No.31753 OF 2009 Page numbers work for putting up the constructions. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs had moved an application for interim injunction identical to the reliefs sought for in the suit till its disposal. The learned Munsiff has ordered urgent notice on that application while allowing an application for commission moved by the plaintiffs. The issue of urgent notice would defeat the very purpose of the suit. And an interim prohibitory injunction is absolutely essential is the case of the petitioners, and so much so, they have rushed to this court with the present writ petition. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find it is not proper and appropriate for this court to pass any interim orders/directions as canvassed for in the writ petition. The temple procession had been going on W.P.(C).No.31753 OF 2009 Page numbers in connection with its annual festival through the maidan is canvassed as a right in the suit to restrain the State and other authorities from putting up any construction. From the submissions made and also from the allegations set in the Ext.P1 plaint, what is the connection of the school with the maidan cannot be disciplined. However the circumstances would indicate that the maidan may be part and parcel of the third defendant school. If that be so, it is just and reasonable to infer that putting up of boundary walls in the school compound may be essential for the safety of the students studying in that institution. These are all matters to be taken note of by the trial court in deciding the interlocutory application for injunction. The court below is directed to hear and dispose of the application for injunction moved by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible so that a quietus is given to the controversy at the earliest. It is open to the petitioner to move an W.P.(C).No.31753 OF 2009 Page numbers application before the court below for preponing the hearing on I.A requesting permission to serve notice on the respondents by special messenger. If any such request is made, the court below shall pass appropriate orders thereof and after completion of service on the respondents, it shall take every endeavour to dispose of the interlocutory application for injunction within a period of three weeks from the date of completion of such service. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv