IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2011 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 5483 of 2011(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- N. BINDU, W/O.DR.G. SURESH KUMAR, RESIDING AT MEPRAM MANSION, CHEKKALAMUKKU, SREEKARIYAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR SRI.K.R.KURUP (TRIVANDRUM) SMT.SREELATHA PARAMESWARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MAIDAN GARHI, NEW DELHI - 110 068. 2. THE REGISTRAR, INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY, MAIDAN GARHI, NEW DELHI - 110 068. 3. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY, CHAKKALAMUKKU, SREEKARIYAM, PIN - 695 017. 4. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY, MAIDAN MARGHI, NEW DELHI - 110 068. ADV. SRI.P.M.M.NAJEEB KHAN, SC IGNOU SRI.S.VINOD BHAT FOR R3 SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN FOR R3 SRI.R.D.SHENOY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 5483 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 25th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the landlady of a premises bearing building No.IV 326-1,2 and 6 of Sreekariyam Panchayat. According to the petitioner. Pursuant to Ext.P2 notification, respondents took the building on lease for the period from 1/1/2009 to 31/12/2013. It is stated that to make the building suitable for the respondents, petitioner had to spend considerable amounts. However, respondents issued Ext.P4 notice of termination of lease w.e.f. 28th of February, 2011. Aggrieved by Ext.P4, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 representation to the 4th respondent. To the representation also, there was no response. It is with the aforesaid grievance, the writ petition is filed. 2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents. Learned senior counsel pointed out that Ext.P1 is an unenforceable document for the reason that it is neither stamped or registered in terms of the provisions of the Stamp Act and the Registration Act respectively. It is also contended that at any rate WPC No. 5483/11 :2 : Ext.P4 is a notice issued in terms of Clause 9 of Ext.P1. 3. First of all, the issue raised by the petitioner is a purely civil dispute and no remedy can be sought in a proceedings under Article 226. Even otherwise, so long as Clause 9 of Ext.P1 remains, Ext.P4 cannot be said to be illegal. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition calling for interference in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp