The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of the interim injunction order of the Munsiff Court, Changanassery in I.A.No.66/2010 in O.S.No.16/2010, which was confirmed in the appeal, C.M.A.No.57/2010 filed by the first respondent, the first respondent is excavating soil and also blasting rocks. It is also submitted that this was done in flagrant violation of existing regulations. It is further submitted that on account of the summer recess for the civil court, the first respondent is taking advantage of the said circumstances and continuing with the above activities. The petitioner has made Ext.P4 request before the fourth respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kottayam in that regard.
2. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that if there is any violation of the interim order passed by the Civil Court, the petitioner's remedy is to approach the Civil Court for taking action against the first respondent. However, pendency of any civil case will not stand in the way of the official respondents taking action against the first respondent, if it is found that these excavation activities as well as blasting works are without any permission.
W.P.(C).No.12411/2014 -:2:-
3. There shall be a direction to the fourth respondent to consider and take appropriate action on Ext.P4 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the first respondent. This shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ms