IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9224 of 2009(W) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ N.SUDHAKARAN,AGED 78,S/O.M.P.NARAYANAN, R/AT SREEMANGALATHU HOUSE,NEDUMKANDAM P.O, KALKOONTHAL VILLAGE,IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.TOM JOSE RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,IDUKKI DISTRICT, PAINAVU P.O,IDUKKI. 2. THE TAHSILDAR,UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, NEDUMKANDAM P.O,IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI DISTRICT,PAINAVU P.O,IDUKKI. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUMKANDAM POLICE STATION, NEDUMKANDAM P.O,IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUMKANDAM POLICE STATION, NEDUMKANDAM P.O,IDUKKI DISTRICT. SHRI. M.P SREEKRISHNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 9224 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that he is in occupation of 5 cents of land for the last 40 years. According to the petitioner, when he was threatened with eviction, he submitted Exhibit P6 representation seeking assignment of the land. At that stage, he filed a writ petition before this Court as W.P(C) No.12889/2006. That writ petition was disposed of by Exhibit P10 judgment directing the respondent to consider the application made. It is stated that thereafter by Exhibit P12, he was called for an enquiry and although he was heard, orders were not communicated. It is stated that in the meanwhile, he was asked to vacate from the land in question and at that stage he filed a suit as O.S. No.54/2009 before the Munsiff Court, Kattapana. It is stated that although an application for interim injunction also has been filed, since there is no presiding officer, he could not seek any interim order. It is stated that, taking advantage of the situation, the respondents might force into vacate from the land and on that W.P.(C) No. 9224 /2009 2 apprehension this writ petition has been filed. 2. Learned Government pleader has obtained detailed instructions from the second respondent. According to the learned Government pleader in pursuance to Exhibit P10 judgment, application made by the petitioner was considered and the first respondent by order dated 26/02/2009 rejected the same. It is stated that order also has been communicated to the petitioner on 23/03/2009 however, further action is deferred in view of the model code of conduct implemented on the declaration of General Elections. 3. From the above submissions of the learned Government Pleader, it is seen that the statement of the petitioner that orders were not passed on his application for assignment is factually incorrect. Although, learned Government Pleader submits that order also has been communicated to the petitioner, this submission is disputed. Be that as it may, now that order has been passed rejecting his application for assignment, this writ petition is disposed of directing that if the order still has not been communicated to him, on the production W.P.(C) No. 9224 /2009 3 of a copy of this judgment, the second respondent shall communicate the order to the petitioner, in which event, it will be open to the petitioner to pursue his remedies against the said order. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm