Shaffique, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court alleging harassment by the Police in connection with implementation of Ext.P5 order. Ext.P5 order dated 01.09.2014 indicates that it is a notice issued by the Assistant Health Officer of Corporation of Cochin alleging public nuisance on account of parking of vehicles by petitioner for repairs by the side of the road. The notice has been issued after conducting necessary enquiry based on the instructions issued by the District Collector.
2. According to the petitioner, Ext.P5 order is under challenge and therefore police cannot insist for enforcement of Ext.P5. If Ext.P5 is under challenge, it is always open for the petitioner to obtain appropriate orders in the writ petition filed challenging Ext.P5 as W.P.(C) No.24021 of 2014. But as far as public road is concerned, if there is any hindrance, it is always open for the Corporation of Cochin to request the petitioner to abate the nuisance. That does not mean that the petitioner is WP(C) No. 25671 of 2014 -:2:-
not entitled to carry on his business activity and he is entitled to carry on the work, for which he has valid license. If the Police insists to comply with Ext.P5, as matters stand now, we do not think that it amounts to any harassment.
In that view of the matter, there being no basis for the petition, the same is dismissed.
Ashok Bhushan, Acting Chief Justice.
A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
ttb/01/10