IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 26786 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.ROY PAUL,VAZHAKKALA HOUSE, CHILLENTHODE,VENGOOR PO, ERNAKULAM 683 546. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHANDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM-14. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,PVIP DIVISION NO.1,IRINGOLE, PERUMBAVOOR 683 546. 3. SMT.ANNAKUTTY,W/O.ABRAHAM, THAIKEETTATHIL,CHILLENTHODE, PO VENGOOR, PERUMBAVOOR 683 546. SR GP SRI. JOSEPH GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 26786 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF LETTER DATED 2/1/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF SKETCH MAP OF THE AREA PREPARED BY THE REVENUE OFFICER(S). EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF LETTER DT.26/4/2011 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 A COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.5/11/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 A COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.17/3/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO IST RESPONDENT. /true copy/ P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).26786/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 14th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT The prayer sought in the writ petition reads thus:- “To issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction to the 1st respondent to invoke the provisions of Section 133 of Criminal Procedure Code and to ensure that the encroachment committed by the 3rd respondent near the property of the petitoiner is removed without further delay so as to use the road as a motorable road instead of a foot-path.” 2. This prayer is sought on the basis that a pathway shown in Ext.P2 sketch has been encroached upon by the third respondent and that therefore, the petitioner's access has been obstructed. It is also stated that the petitioner has already moved the first respondent for invoking powers under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C, but there was no response to the said representation. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 3. Though notice has been served on the third respondent, there is no appearance on her behalf. W.P.(C).26786/11 2 4. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, petitioner should have moved the Sub Divisional Magistrate or the RDO, Fort Kochi, for appropriate action under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. Since the petitioner has not done so, and his representation before the first respondent also remains unattended, I feel the circumstances justify that on the production of a copy of this judgment, the first respondent will treat the writ petition as a petition filed by the petitioner for invoking his jurisdiction under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C where upon, the RDO shall take appropriate action in the matter with notice to the petitioner and the third respondent. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs /true copy/ P.A. To Judge