IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10147 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.T. KUNHIKOYA, S/O. ABOOBACKER, KALAM THITHIYODA, AGATTI ISLAND, U.T OF LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, AGATTI, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP. 2. AYINEPURA SEETHIKOYA, AGATTI ISLAND, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP. ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.10147 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the Ist day of April, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner has a case that the 2nd respondent has unauthorizedly made certain constructions in his property. That appears to be the subject matter of O.S.No.3/2000 on the file of the District Court, Kavarathy. It is stated that during the pendency of the suit, the first respondent has dealt deal with the issue and the first respondent passed Ext.P3, an order dated 12.3.2009. 2. The grievance in this writ petition is that on the merits of the controversy the first respondent has expressed his views in Ext.P3 and the apprehension now is that the observations made by the first respondent in Ext.P3 are likely to be used against the petitioner in the civil suit that is pending. WP(c).No.10147/09 /2/ 3. I do not think that there is any basis for the apprehension. This is for the reason that the suit which is pending in the Civil Court has to be decided by that court on the materials produced and the evidence adduced and the observations made in Ext.P3 cannot cause any prejudice to the petitioner in such proceedings. Clarifying the position as above, the writ petition is disposed of. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.10147/09 /2/