IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 326 of 2011(M) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ R.INNOCENT, DEENA BHAVAN, M.R.A-51,MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM-1 BY ADV. SRI.ALEX N.MATHEW (KOLLAM) SRI.H.RAMANAN SRI.JAMES JOSE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOLLAM, KOLLAM-691013 2. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, STATE OF KERALA,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY PIN-695001 3. PANDIRI BHAI THILLERI PUTHEN VEEDU, MANDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM- 691013 4. CORPORATION OF KOLLAM,KOLLAM, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN. 691 013. R1 & R4 ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.326 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is one of the neighbours of the third respondent filed this Writ Petition alleging illegal construction of a toilet by the third respondent in her property. According to the petitioner, on account of the said illegal construction, the water in the well in his property is getting polluted. The said toilet should have been constructed 7.5 metres away from the aforesaid well whereas it is constructed within 6.5 metres from the well in question. Pointing out those aspects, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P6 representation before the first respondent inviting interference into the matter. This Writ Petition has been filed on being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the first respondent in considering Ext.P6 representation. In view of the order I propose to pass in this Writ Petition I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the third respondent. 2. As noticed hereinbefore, highlighting his grievances, the petitioner has already approached the first respondent through Ext.P6 representation dated 29.11.2010 and admittedly, it is still pending. When W.P.(C) NO.326/2011 2 such a representation is filed before the authority who is competent to look into the grievances raised thereunder that authority is having a bounden duty to look into the grievances and take appropriate action in accordance with law. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 representation submitted by the petitioner expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner and the third respondent. Needless to say that the said parties shall also be afforded with an opportunity of being heard before passing orders on Ext.P6. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.326/2011 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.326/2011 4