IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2010 / 4TH SRAVANA 1932 RP.No. 621 of 2010 IN W.P.(C) No.14623 of 2010 (C) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.14623/2010 Dated 19/05/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S):3RD RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------------------- PRABHAKARAN, S/O.P.KUNJULAKSHMI, AGED 46 YEARS, PALLOTTUKONATH VADAKKUMKARA KUNNUM PURATHU VEEDU, VEERANAKAVU P.O. KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SREEKANTH S.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1, 2 & 4 TO 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PARAMESWARAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN, AMRITHAPUR, VEERANAKAVU P.O., KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. P. KUNJULEKSHMI, D/O.PARVATHI, PALLOTTUKONATH VADAKKUMKARA KUNNUM PURATHU VEEDU, VEERANAKAVU P.O., KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. P. KRISHNAMMA, D/O.PARVATHI, PALLOTTUKONATH VADAKKUMKARA KUNNUM PURATHU VEEDU, VEERANAKAVU P.O., KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SREENIVASAN, ASTROLOGER, JYOTHISHALAYAM, PALODE, PALODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTAKADA POLICE STATION, KATTAKADA POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R5 & R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. R1 BY ADV.SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ R.P.No.621 of 2010 in W.P.(C) No.14623 of 2010-C ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of July, 2010 O R D E R K.M.Joseph, J. Review petitioner is the 3rd respondent in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent in this review petition seeking police protection. This Court refused police protection relegating the petitioner to pursue the remedy in view of the availability of the remedy. But, this Court directed that, if any cognizable offence is committed action shall be taken in accordance with law. It is apparently feeling aggrieved by the said portion of the judgment the review petition is filed. According to the petitioner, petitioner is entitled to put up the building in question and the police is harassing without any basis. It is also submitted that the matter was pending in the Civil Court also. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner execution petition is pending. Whatever that be the fact remains that we do not see any error in our judgment. We do no see how the review RP No.621/2010 -2- petitioner can complain of the direction in the judgment that if any cognizable offence is committed action is to be taken in accordance with law. Without prejudice to any other remedy which the review petitioner has the Review Petition is dismissed. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS