IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 W.P.(C).No. 14937 of 2008 (C) PETITIONERS: 1. VIJAYAN NAIR, S/O.VASUDEVAN NAIR, HOUSE NO.58, VINAYAK, AKSAYA NAGAR, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM. 2. ABRAHAM T.G., BETHEL, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM. 3. SUJATHA, CHUZHATHIL, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM. 4. AJITHA, D/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, AMBADI, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM. 5. SUDHAKARAN, S/O.VASUDEVAN, ARAMANA, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------ 1. KOLLAM CORPORATION, CORPORATION BUILDING, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION, KOLLAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROAD AND BUILDINGS, KOLLAM. 4. THE SECRETARY, KOLLAM DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI. M.K. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 14937 OF 2008 - C = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th May, 2008. J U D G M E N T The complaint in this writ petition is regarding the proposal mooted by the 1st respondent Corporation for constructing a drainage. According to the petitioners, the proposal is to construct the drainage with an opening into their land and that if it materialises, during monsoon there will be flooding of water in their properties. Petitioners submit that though they have not been communicated any decision regarding the said proposal, coming to know of the same, they have submitted Ext.P4 representation before the Executive Engineer of the 1st respondent. It is seen from Ext.P5 that the said representation has been received. However, it is complained that so far the Corporation has not taken any action on Ext.P4 representation and as a result of this, the threat of construction of the drainage as apprehended by them still prevails, submits the learned counsel. W.P.(C) No. 14937 OF 2008 - 2 - 2. I heard the standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, who submits that Ext.P4 will be duly adverted to. 3. In view of the pendency of Ext.P4 complaint made by the petitioners in the background as stated above, it is only appropriate that the 1st respondent takes note of the same and considers the matter. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing that the 1st respondent shall take Ext.P4 into consideration and take an appropriate decision in the matter. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, and with notice to the petitioners herein. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-