IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10369 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.ABDULLA, BEVINJA, THEKKILFERRY POST, KASARAGODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHENGALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHENGALA, KASARCODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY. 2. SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, CHENGALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH CHENGALA, KASARGODE. 3. CHERKALAM MUHAMMED, KEKKEPURATH BALADUKKAM, CHENGALA P.O., KASARGODE. 4. AAMU, KEKKEPURATH, BALADUKKAM, CHENGALA P.O., KASARGODE. 5. ABBAS VITTAL, KEKKEPURATH, BALADUKKAM, CHENGALA P.O., KASARCODE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).10369/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner alleges that in the construction undertaken by respondents 3 to 5, there are certain violations of provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and therefore, the permit is liable to be cancelled. It is stated that the petitioner has filed Ext.P5 before the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent has not taken any action on the said complaint. It is with this complaint, the writ petition is filed. 2. If as stated by the petitioner he has filed Ext.P5 complaint, it is the responsibility of the 2nd respondent to consider the same and pass orders thereon. 3. Having regard to the case that Ext.P5 is remaining unattended by the 2nd respondent, it is directed that the 2nd respondent shall take cognizance of Ext.P5, consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as W.P.(C).10369/10 2 possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Any order to be passed on Ext.P5 shall be with notice to the affected parties. 4. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the contentions raised and it is entirely for the 2nd respondent to deal with the matter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs