IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2008 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8235 of 2008(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.P. KUNHIMOOSA, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, BUILDING NO.M.P.XI/330 SOORYA COFFEE WORKS,MEENANGADI P.O.SULTHAN BATHERY WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PRASANTH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, WAYANAD CIVIL STATION, KALPETTA P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. K.P. KADEEJA, PADIKKARA HOUSE, KARIYAMBADI, P.O. MEENANGADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 8235 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: MARCH 13, 2008 JUDGMENT In this writ petition the challenge is against Ext.P10. Though Ext.P10 has been issued to the owner of the building mentioned therein, the petitioner, who is the tenant of the said building, contends that the order has been issued at the instance of the owner himself in order to ensure that the petitioner is evicted from his premises. The petitioner would also contend that Ext.P10 gives a misleading picture about the strength of the building and also refers to Ext.P6, a certificate issued by an engineer certifying the fitness of the building. 2. Irrespective of the controversies raised by the petitioner, I feel that this is not a controversy which this court should attempt to resolve the disputed questions that are involved. Ext.P10 is evidently an order passed under sec.133(d) of the Cr.P.C. If that be so, the petitioner has every freedom to appear before the 1st respondent himself and show cause as to why the order should not WP(C) 8235 of 2008 Page numbers be made absolute. True, the learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in contending that Ext.P10 does not give any indication as to his right to object to the order. But, then, the order has to be understood only in the manner as prayed for under sec.133 Cr.P.C. Therefore I dispose of this writ petition directing that if the petitioner is objecting to Ext.P10, he may appear before the 1st respondent and show cause as to why the order shall not be made absolute. If the petitioner shows cause as above, the 1st respondent will decide the matter with notice to the 2nd respondent, owner of the building. The proceedings as above shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with the objection that the petitioner has against Ext.P10. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-