IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5117 of 2010(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. PATHROS ULAHANNAN, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O.PATHROSE, CHATHANKANDATHIL HOUSE,H.NOS.20/319A KARAKKUNNAM, PUTHUPPADI.P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 673. 2. VARKEY MATHAI, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.C.V.MATHEW,HOUSE.NO.20/59,KARAKKUNNAM, PUTHUPPADI.P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 673. 3. SANTHY VARGHESE, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.C.P.VARGHESE,H.NO.20/69,CHATHAMCHIRAPATTU HOUSE,KARAKKUNNAM, PUTHUPPADI.P.O,KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 673. BY ADV. SRI.P.FAZIL SRI.SREEJITH V.S. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY, KOTHAMANGALM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. N.P.KURIAKOSE, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, AMBAZHACHALIL HOUSE, PUTHUPPADI.P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN 686 673., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.5117 OF 2010 (L) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners claim to be the residents of Ward No.20 of the second respondent Municipality. According to the petitioners there is a canal known as `Attayam Thodu Kayyani' passing through the northern side of their property. It is stated that the second respondent Municipality had decided to repair the side walls of the canal and pathway and included the said work in Ext.P1. However, the work could not be completed during the period of Ext.P1 and therefore was included in Ext.P2 for the next year. However, during that time work was obstructed and therefore the same was abandoned. This position continues even as on date. In the circumstances petitioners along with others submitted Ext.P4 before the 2nd respondent Municipality to revive the work and complete the same on an expeditious basis. It is stated that expeditious decision on Ext.P4 is necessary, as the fund already alloted will be lapsed by 31.3.2010. WPC.No. 5117/2010 :2 : 2. In the nature of the aforesaid grievance raised in the writ petition, I feel that, the grievance of the petitioner will be redressed, if the respondent Municipality takes a decision on Ext.P4 representation filed by the petitioner. 3. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the Municipality will consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 15 days from the date of production of a copy of the judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 5117/2010 :3 :