IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 6TH MAY 2010 / 16TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13359 of 2010(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06/03/2010 IN IA.59/2010 IN OS.18/2010 of MUNSIFF COURT, PEERUMEDU .................... PETITIONER: --------------- K.N.SASI, S/O.NARAYANAN, KALABHAMKULATH, PULIYANOOR VILLAGE, KOZHUVAMKULAM KARA, DIST.KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. EDVIN, S/O.GNANADAS, HOSWELL HOME, CHINNAR 3RD MILE KARA, ELAPPARA VILLAGE, PEERMEDU TALUK, DIST.IDUKKI. 2. K.V.JOSE, MARGADEEPAM S.H.G., CHINNAR 3RD MILE KARA, ELAPPARA VILLAGE, PEERMEDU TALUK, DIST.IDUKKI. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, IDUKKI DIVISION, THODUPUZHA. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, PEERMEDU, DIST. IDUKKI. ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVASIA FOR R1 & 2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAMANAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH,J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C).NO. 13359 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of May, 2010. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.18/2010 of the Court of Learned Munsiff, Peerumedu. That suit was filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 for injunction against petitioner conducting toddy business in Room No.EP R/32 during 2010 - 2011, according to respondent Nos.1 and 2 as it violated the distance Rule provided in Rule 7(2) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules 2002. They filed I.A.59/2010 for an interim order of injunction in the same line. Petitioner entered appearance in the said application and it was posted for counter and hearing on 11.2.2010, 27.2.2010 and then on 20.3.2010. In the meantime. respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed application with notice to the petitioner to advance hearing of I.A.No.59/2010 and with notice to the petitioner, that application was W.P(C).NO. 13359 OF 2010 2 allowed and hearing of I.A.No.59/2010 was advanced to 6.3.2010. There was, no representation for the petitioner, nor was counter filed. Hence the learned Magistrate finding that a prima facie case is made out against petitioner granted interim injunction until further orders. That order (Ext.P3) is under challenge in this writ petition invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos 3 and 4. According to the learned Government Pleader, no application for renewal was filed by the petitioner for 2010 -2011. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Ext.P3 order is patently illegal and is in violation of the proviso to Rule 7(2) referred to above which enabled petitioner to carry on business in the same premises where he was conducting business during 2009-2010, during 2010 - 2011 also. W.P(C).NO. 13359 OF 2010 3 It is not necessary or appropriate for this court to interfere with Ext.P3 order either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. For, Ext.P3 order is not a final order, instead, it is issued only until further orders. That order is subject to an appeal or even an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The remedy of petitioner is to invoke the statutory remedy provided under the Code if aggrieved by Ext.P3, order. It is not as if the Civil Court is not competent to consider the illegality pleaded by petitioner. Assuming that courts are closed for vacation, there is ample provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure and the Civil Courts Act to file appeal/application before the vacation court if urgent orders are required. In the circumstances, I do not find reason to grant any relief in this writ petition. Resultantly the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to W.P(C).NO. 13359 OF 2010 4 the right of petitioner to challenge Ext.P3 order as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure. I make it clear that if any such challenge is made by the petitioner, the court concerned would expedite that proceedings and decide the matter as early as possible. THOMAS P JOSEPH,JUDGE. pm