IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31649 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ILLIAS HAJINAGAR RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION VAI PADI, EDAPALLY NORTH KOCHI-24 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SHAJI K.GEORGE S/O.GEORGE, AGED 52,PLOT NO,13,KALLUMPURATH ILLIAS HAJI NAGAR RESIDENT ASSOCIATION, VAI PADI EDAPALLY NORTH, KOCHI-24. 2. NAZEER,S/O. ABDUL KHADER, EDATHOTTIL HOUSE, ILLIAS HAJI NAGAR, VAI PADI, EDAPALLY NORTH, KOCHI-24. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.S.VAIDYANATHAN SRI.P.PRIJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THAHASILDAR KANAYANNUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. 2. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR AGED ABOUT 62, NENMENI, GOKULAM, PONEKKARA, ELAMAKKARA P.O., JAWAN CROSS ROAD, EDAPPALLY. 3. MOHANAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED ABOUT 60 ILLIKATTU HOUSE, KOONAMTHAI, EDAPPALLY, KALAMASSERY. 4. SONY VENEETH, 36,1738, CHILANKA ILLIAS HAJI NAGAR, EDAPPALLY NORTH, KOCHI. BY GP SMT.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).31649/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P4 notice issued by the Tahsildar proposing to conduct an enquiry on a complaint filed by respondents 2 to 4 regarding the alleged obstruction caused by the second petitioner to a pathway. According to the petitioners, Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on this matter because the pathway involved is only a private pathway. 2. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that Tahsildar, the first respondent, has not proposed to adjudicate in the matter and he will only forward a report to the RDO. Submission is recorded. It is further submitted that the first respondent has conducted a site inspection. 3. Tahsildar may forward the report to the RDO and RDO may, if the circumstances so warrant, proceed in accordance with law under Section 133 of the W.P.(C).31649/2008 2 Cr.P.C. This obviously means that even if there are circumstances, only a conditional order can be passed by the RDO and parties are at liberty to take appropriate steps to defend their rights in accordance with law under Section 138 of the Cr.P.C. Subject to the above, writ petition is disposed of. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs