IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 WA.No. 1188 of 2009 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.8721/2009 Dated 03/04/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ C.L.VAREED,AGED 38,S/O.CHALAKAL LONA, THIRUR,MULANKUNNATHUKAVU P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MULANKUNNATHUKAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,MULANKUNNATHUKAVU P.O., THRISSUR. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION,THRISSUR. 4. ROSY,CHALAKAL HOUSE,THIRUR,P.O. MULANKUNNATHUKAVU,THRISSUR. R1 & R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & Kurian Joseph, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.1188 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 10th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. This writ appeal is filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 3rd April, 2009 in W.P.(C) No.8721 of 2009. The petitioner/appellant approached this Court with the following prayer: “Issue an appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to take action on Ext.P3 on the basis of Exts.P1 and P2 within such time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble court in the interest of justice.” 2. Considering the nature of the prayer and the submissions made by the counsel, the learned Single Judge deemed that the writ petition is in the nature of a public interest litigation and as such dismissed the writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioner/appellant to file a public interest litigation on the same cause of action. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ appeal is filed, inter alia, contending that the petitioner/appellant is mainly aggrieved by the W.A.No.1188 of 2009 - 2 - blockage of his passage initially by his mother respondent No.4 and thereafter the purchasers of the property from his mother and hence the finding that the dispute is in the realm of public interest by the learned Single Judge is erroneous and the entire case requires consideration. 3. Though we do not agree with the finding of the learned Single Judge that this is a public interest litigation, as the grievance of the petitioner/appellant is mainly in the nature of a civil dispute, it is open for him to approach the appropriate court to seek his remedy. It is well settled that this Court will not exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to settle a civil dispute. Therefore, we dismiss the writ appeal with the liberty as mentioned above. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice Kurian Joseph, Judge vns