IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 9507 of 2008(F) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- JACOB, S/O.THOMMAN, AGED 61 YEARS, PARAYADIYIL HOUSE, THIDANADU KARA, KONDOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.JANARDHANA KURUP (SR.) SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE SRI.B.VINOD SRI.P.K.VARGHESE SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR SRI.N.K.SHYJU RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DIST. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIDANADU POLICE STATION, THIDANADU P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST. 4. A.T.THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O.PAPPACHAN, AZHAKATH, THIDANADU P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST. 5. BENNY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O.VARKEYCHAN, THEYYIL HOUSE, THIDANADU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 6. THIDANADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIDANADU, KONDOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.BINU PAUL FOR R4 & 5 SRI.T.V.VINU FOR R4 & 5 SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL FOR R.6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).NO.9507 OF 2008 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OS.12/06 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERATTUPETTA DATED 28.10.2006. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.108/06 REGISTERED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 21.11.2006. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24.11.2006. EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1S RESPONDENT ON 14.3.2007. EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF REPRESENTATION GIVEN TO THE 1S RESPONDENT DATED 15.3.2008. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.HEMA,JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.9507 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. This Court, after hearing both sides, passed an interim order on 27.3.2008. In view of the said order, no further orders are necessary in this Writ petition. But the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that if any person, who is not entitled to use the pathway is using it, the said order will stand in the way of invoking his right to defend his property. We only said that the petitioner will not get police assistance to cause obstruction to the use of the pathway. If he has rights to prevent the use of the pathway by ineligible persons, the same will not be affected by that observation in the order. Subject to this clarification, the Writ Petition is disposed of, maintaining the above said interim order. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.