IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29669 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.S.NARAYANA PANICKER, SANKARA PANICKER, KURIANOOR PADINJARETHIL, VILOONI P.O., KOTTAYAM-8. BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM EAST. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. 5. JACOB @ JOY, VIRUTHIPARAMPIL, ARPOOKARA VILLAGE, ARPOOKARA. 6. ETTUMANOOR BLOCK PANCHAYATH, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, ETTUMANOOR. ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS FOR R5 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DHANESH MATHEW M ANJOORAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.29669/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S. NO.350/2009. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 19/7/2010. EXT.P3; COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND ITS RECEIPT DATED 28/8/2010. /TRUE COY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.29669 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 for police protection for his life and properties. He also prays that the 5th respondent be directed not to illegally encroach and trespass into the properties of the petitioner. 2. Considering this writ petition for admission this court on 29/9/2010 passed an interim direction that respondents 1 to 4 will ensure that the status quo as obtaining today is maintained as regards the pathway in question. The 6th respondent was directed to file a counter affidavit specifically stating as to whether there was any acquisition of land from the petitioner and also as to whether the pathway in question is shown as a road in the road register maintained by the Panchayat. No affidavit in compliance with the above order has been filed by the 6th respondent Block Panchayat. For reasons best known to them, they have not chosen to enter appearance even. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Surin George IPE requested that the order directing the maintenance of status WPC.No.29669/2010 2 quo be confirmed. He referred to Ext.P1 injunction decree passed against the 5th respondent. The learned counsel submitted that the 5th respondent is trying to by pass the decree by forming a committee and assuming leadership of that committee. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent sought for time to file counter affidavit. We find that Ext.P1 decree of perpetual injunction is passed against the 5th respondent also. As long as Ext.P1 stands, the 5th respondent is not entitled to trespass into the property which is subject matter of Ext.P1 case. We do not find any infirmity about the interim order passed by this court to maintain status quo. We confirm the above interim order and dispose of this writ petition directing that the status quo as obtaining today shall be maintained with respect to the pathway in question by all the parties including the 5th respondent so long as Ext.P1 injunction decree is in currency. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K. HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk WPC.No.29669/2010 3