IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6807 of 2010(S) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. JOHNY VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 48 YEARS, ZION VILLA, THAIKATTUSSERY, OLLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. RAJU PUZHANKARA, S/O.SANKARANARAYANA MENON, AGED 43 YEARS, HARVIN PLAZA, THALORE P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR. 3. GROUP VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAKUNNI & MARATHAKARA VILLAGE, MARATHAKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. NATIONAL HIGH WAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (N.H.A.I.), REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER & PROJECT DIRECTOR. 5. PUTHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PUTHUR P.O., THRISSUR. WP(C) 6807/2010 2 6. SECRETARY, PUTHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PUTHUR P.O., THRISSUR. 7. SIDDEEK AHAMED HAJI, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.ERAM PROPERTY NETT WORK PVT. LTD., MARATHAKARA P.O., MARATHAKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL. R4 BY ADV. SRI. THOMAS ANTONY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN Ag. CJ & C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C). 6807 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010. J U D G M E N T Raman, Ag. CJ. This writ petition is filed as a Public Interest Litigation challenging the construction undertaken by the 7th respondent. It is alleged that construction is being undertaken in a land which was reclaimed on the strength of Exts.P1 and P2 permissions for effecting the specific purpose of dumping the waste from the site of widening of National High Way and now in gross violation of those orders and in violation of the provisions contained in Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008, the 6th respondent had accorded permission for constructing the building. Therefore, virtually challenging the order passed by the 6th respondent and also complaining violation of the earlier order permitting reclamation, petitioners seek for a writ of mandamus. 2. Necessarily, petitioners have to approach the authorities by filing appropriate complaints, if so advised, before approaching this Court as a condition precedent for issuance of a writ of mandamus, as any such writ could be issued only if there is a refusal to perform statutory duty. No WP(C) 6807/2010 2 such attempt is made. However, petitioners have produced some photographs as Ext.P6, which would clearly show that construction has been improved to a considerable extent. There is no reason as to why petitioners did not approach this Court at the time when the very construction was started and waited till such time a portion of the building was completed. In these circumstances, we do not think this is a fit case to be entertained as a Public Interest Litigation. However, if the petitioners are aggrieved by any action or inaction on the side of the authorities, they can approach appropriate authorities under law, in which case, certainly, we have no doubt in our mind, the authorities shall consider their complaints and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, (Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE) C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE). knc/-