IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35071 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. N.K.CHANDRAMATHY,AGED 64 YEARS, MOORKANATTU HOUSE, KEDAMANGALAM,NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. M.M.DIBIN,S/O.LATE MOHANAN, AGED 33 YEARS,MOORKANATTU HOUSE, KEDAMANGALAM,NORTH PARAVUR,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY, PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY,NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY,NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. K.B.MOHANAN,ANUGRAHA,KEDAMANGALAM, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. C.B.BABU, KELATHUPARAMBIL, KEDAMANGALAM,NORTH PARAVUR,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY SRI.T.A.SHAJI, SC FOR PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.35071 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P8 show cause notice dated 3.7.2010 issued by the Secretary of the Paravur Municipality and Ext.P11 notice dated 2.11.2010 issued by the Municipal Engineer, Paravur Municipality, informing the petitioners that the building permit issued to them will be cancelled, if they do not restore the Thodu passing through their property, are under challenge in this writ petition. It appears that Exts.P8 and P11 notices were issued on a complaint filed by respondents 4 and 5 who claimed that the petitioners had filled a Thodu passing through their property thereby blocking the flow of water through the Thodu. From the pleadings and materials on record, the question that arises for consideration is whether a Thodu as alleged by respondents is in existence or not. It is an issue on which both oral and documentary evidence will have to be adduced and a commission may also have to be taken out. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioners ought to have moved the competent civil court seeking redressal of their grievances. I, therefore, find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ W.P.(C) No.35071 of 2010 2 petition fails and is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to move the competent civil court seeking redressal of their grievances. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.