IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5841 of 2009(A) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ P.P.SREEDHARAN NAIR,PATROL HOUSE, KOMMERI.P.O, KOZHIKODE.7. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE REP; BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE-32. 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,KOZHIKODE. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, KOZHIKODE. 4. STATE OF KERALA REP. IN CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH SRI.K.D.BABU, SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 5841 OF 2009 (A) ==================== Dated this the 24th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6 order issued by the Secretary of the 1st respondent. 2. The dispute in question is concerning a bus shelter in Resurvey No.84/2B of Ward No.26 of Kozhikode Corporation. Petitioner submits that the construction is unauthorised and therefore the 1st respondent should take effective steps for its removal. As is seen from Ext.P6, the stand of the 1st respondent is that the construction if any is in PWD puramboke and therefore it is for the PWD authorities to take action, if any. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits, referring to Ext.P8 issued by the Executive Engineer's office of PWD dated 29/9/2008, that PWD has not granted any sanction. 4. A combined reading of Exts.P6 and P8 shows that according to the PWD, they have not granted any sanction for construction of the bus shelter and it is for the PWD to take action if any. In view of this, I see no reason for the petitioner to challenge Ext.P6. WPC 5841/09 :2 : 5. In my view, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the bus shelter in question, the appropriate course open to the petitioner is to move the 3rd respondent for appropriate action. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the matter before the 3rd respondent for appropriate action, I close the writ petition. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp