IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 745 of 2009(Y) --------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.3563 OF 2009) REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 4 TO 7 ---------------------------- 1. MANKADA ETHEENKUTTY, S/O.KOYAMUTTY HAJI, MANKADA HOUSE, THENNALA KARA, THENMALA VILLAGE, THIRURANGADI. 2. MOHAMMED, S/O.KOYAMUTTY HAJI, MANKADA HOUSE, THENNALA KARA, THENMALA VILLAGE, THIRURANGADI. 3. MOOTAPARAMBAN KUNJU MOIDEEN, S/O.KUNJUTTY HAJI, MOOTAPARAMBAN HOUSE, THENNALA KARA, TIRURANGADI TALUK. 4. MOOTAPARAMBAN SAMAD, S/O.HASSAN, MOOTAPARAMBAN HOUSE, THENNALA KARA, TIRURANGADI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS AND OTHER RESPONDENTS -------------------- 1. HUSSAIN, S/O.MOHAMMED HAJI, MANKADA HOUSE, THENNALA VILLAGE, THENNALA KARA, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, S/O.MOHAMMED HAJI, MANKADA HOUSE, THENNALA VILLAGE, THENNALA KARA, TIRURANGADI TALUK. 3. JAMSEEL, D/O.MOHAMMED HAJI, MANKADA HOUSE, THENNALA VILLAGE, THENNALA KARA, TIRURANGADI TALUK. R.P.No.745 of 2009 : 2 : 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM. 6. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRURANGADI. BY ADV. SRI.T.V. GEORGE FOR R1 TO 3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM FOR R4 TO 6 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------- R.P.No. 745 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No.3563 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 4th August, 2009 O R D E R Raman, J. This review petition is filed pointing out that in the first paragraph of our judgment, dated 23.7.2009, reference was made to the gist of the interim order dated 6.2.2009 and further observed that the same is still in force. It is pointed out that subsequently several interim orders were passed by this Court and the petitioner has also approached the Civil Court and the order dated 6.2.2009 is not in force. 2. Heard both sides. We notice that after the order dated 6.2.2009, this Court had passed an order to maintain status quo on 9.2.2009 and thereafter again an order was passed on 6.3.2009 enabling the parties to raise their respective contentions in the civil case and directed that untrammelled by the observations in the interim order, the matter will be decided. R.P.No.745 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No.3563 of 2009 2 Again on 20.3.2009, we noticed that in view of the interim order dated 6.3.2009, there is no need to pass any orders and adjourned the case. In view of these orders, we are satisfied that a mistake has crept in. Accordingly, the judgment dated 23.7.2009 is set aside and the matter was re-heard. 3. This is a matter pertaining to the police protection. The dispute is regarding the alleged pathway/road which according to the petitioners is made encroaching upon their property. Though the party respondents would say that there was a settlement, according to the petitioners, no such settlement was reached. Since the matter is pending before the civil court, the respective contention of the parties will have to be gone into and appropriate decision will be taken by the court below. 4. In such circumstances, we direct the parties to maintain status quo as on today. There will be a direction to the 3rd respondent, Circle Inspector of Police, to afford protection to the lives of the petitioners and also to maintain law and order. R.P.No.745 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No.3563 of 2009 3 The civil court will decide the matter, untrammelled by whatever interim orders earlier passed by this Court, in accordance with law. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE. nj.