IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 34640 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. GOAPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDA NAIK, MANGALATH HOUSE, PONNARIMANGALAM MULAVUKAD P.O., PIN 682 504. 2. RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDA NAIK, MANGALATH HOUSE, PONNARIMANGALAM, MULAVUKAD P.O., PIN 682 504. BY ADV. SRI.T.O.XAVIER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, MULAVUKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MULAVUKAD P.O., PIN 682 504. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT-KOCHI. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.34640 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners, who are brothers, have filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P3 preliminary order issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi in M.C.No.392/10/D and Ext.P5 letter sent by the Secretary of Mulavukad Grama Panchayat calling upon them to demolish a portion of the compound wall, which according to the Panchayat constitutes danger and nuisance to pedestrians. Way back in the year 1998 the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi issued Ext.P1 order directing the petitioners' father to demolish the very same compound wall. He challenged the said order by filing Crl.R.P.No.50 of 1998 in the Court of Session, Ernakulam and Ext.P2 interim order was passed in the said revision petition. The petitioners have not stated whether the revision petition was allowed and Ext.P1 order was set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not aware of the fate of the revision petition. It appears, later some other persons who are aggrieved by the very W.P(C).No.34640 of 2010 -:2:- same compound wall, again moved the Sub Divisional Magistrate who issued Ext.P3 provisional order under section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By that order the petitioners were directed to demolish and remove the compound wall within seven days or to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 4.11.2010 and to show cause why the order should not be enforced. The petitioners appeared before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and filed Ext.P4 objections. It was thereafter that Ext.P5 notice was issued by the Secretary of Mulavukad Grama Panchayat calling upon the petitioners to demolish the compound wall. In my opinion in view of the fact that Ext.P1 order has attained finality, the first respondent is perfectly right in issuing Ext.P5. The first respondent is not bound to wait for the outcome of M.C.No.392/2010 before proceeding to direct the petitioners to demolish the compound wall. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi, has in Ext.P1 order noticed that the compound wall constitutes danger to the pedestrians using the pathway. Ext.P3 order also notices that the compound wall leans towards the pathway thereby causing danger to the pedestrians. In such W.P(C).No.34640 of 2010 -:3:- circumstances as the said orders were issued by the authorities in public interest taking into account the safety of the pedestrians, I am not inclined to interfere with Exts.P1, P2 and P3 orders. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.34640 of 2010 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 18th November, 2010