IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3173 of 2009(C) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, VAYALIL VEEDU, KARIYIL, KAZHAKOOTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 2. DEEPA RUDREN, W/O. RUDRAN NAIR, SREE RUDRAM, KARIYIL, KAZHAKOOTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, JALA VIJANA BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION SECTION, KAZHAKKOOTAM, TIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 3173 OF 2009 (C) ==================== Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is the third writ petition that the petitioners are filing in relation to a compound wall to the property that they have constructed. 2. It is stated that soon after the construction was completed, a notice was issued calling upon them to demolish the compound wall. Thereupon, the writ petition was filed by them as WP(C) No.8057/04 and that writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment directing that the property in question be measured and demarcated before anything further is done. Again notice was issued for demolition and that was called in question in WP(C) No.30365/04 resulting in Ext.P2 judgment. In that judgment, this Court held that if the petitioners still have any grievance, representation can be made to the authorities, in which case, the same will be examined. Petitioners submit that without complying with the direction in Ext.P1, without conducting any survey or demarcation, the respondents again issued Exts.P3 and P4 notices. It is stated that again Ext.P5 representation was filed taking advantage of the direction contained in Ext.P2 judgment and that also remains unattended. WPC 3173/09 :2 : 3. As already noticed, the main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that survey was not conducted as directed, and that any survey if at all conducted, was without notice to them. 4. Learned Government Pleader on the other hand has instructions in the matter and he submits that the survey was conducted and that the same was conducted in the presence of the petitioners themselves. It is also informed that Ext.P5 has been received and that a hearing was scheduled on 3/2/2009, but however, the same has been deferred in view of the pendency of this writ petition. 5. Irrespective of whatever that has happened, fact remains that in Ext.P2 judgment, this Court gave liberty to the petitioners to ventilate their grievances before the authorities concerned by filing a representation. This the petitioners have availed of by filing Ext.P5. As informed by the learned Government Pleader, the receipt of Ext.P5 has been acknowledged and a hearing is also scheduled. 6. In view of this, I direct that the respondents shall consider Ext.P5, with notice to the petitioners and take a decision thereon. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible. WPC 3173/09 :3 : 7. It is also directed that in the meanwhile, further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P3 and P4 will be kept in abeyance. 8. Petitioners may produce a copy of this judgment before the respondents for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp