IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2008 / 21ST SRAVANA 1930 W.P(C).No. 15201 of 2008(S) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- N.K.BIJU, S/O. KUNJUMON, GENERAL SECRETARY, IDUKKI DIST, YOUTH CONGRESS (I) COMMITTEE, NEDUMATTATHIL HOUSE, MUTTOM, P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI, DIST. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN MANNALI SRI.M.P.JAYAKUMAR SMT.K.INDU (POURNAMI) RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, C/O. OFFICE OF THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER M.V.I.P. SUB DIVISION, NO.I, MUTTOM, IDUKKI DIST. 2. THE DISTRICT RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF IDUKKI ST.GEORGE ARMOUR, MARKET ROAD, THODUPUZHA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI PRINCE MATHEW. 3. PRINCE MATHEW, SECRETARY, DISTRICT RIFLE ASSOCIATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT, ST.GEORGE ARMOUR, MARKET ROAD, THODUPUZHA . 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, M.V.I.P.DIVISION, NO.I, C/O. OFFICE OF THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER M.V.I.P. DIVISION, NO.I, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DIST. W.P.(C)NO.15201 OF 2008 - 2 - 5. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, C/O. OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT 6. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE C/O. OFFICE OF THE SUPTD. OF POLICE IDUKKI DISTRICT. 7. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPT. OF IRRIGATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 8. THE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MUTTOM,. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MUTTOM,. IDUKKI DIST. R1 & R4 TO R7 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN R2 & R3 BY ADV.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15201 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 12th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. Public spirited citizens are before us in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner organization seeks the following reliefs in this writ petition. They are as under: “I) to issue a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, direction, or order, calling for the records leading to Ext.P1 agreement, and to quash the same. II) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 4th respondent to cancel Ext.P1 agreement, as mentioned in the Ext.P9 notice of the 4th respondent. III) to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 1st respondent to demolish, the two storied building, which has been constructed illegally in the leased out area as per Ext.P1 agreement, the same being constructed violating the terms of Ext.P1 agreement. W.P. (C) No.15201 of 2008 2 IV) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 7th & 8th respondents to consider and dispose of Exts.P7 & P8 representations filed by the petitioner and pending before them. V) to direct the respondents to pay the costs of this proceedings. VI) to grant any other reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, during the course of arguments, and which this hon'ble court deems fit to grant.” 3. The brief assertions made by the petitioner is as under: It is stated that the second respondent District Rifle Association, Idukki had applied for land from the Government for its functioning. It is stated that an extent of 7850 sq. mts. of land was allotted by the Government to the second respondent on a lease basis. The agreement was entered into by the first respondent with the Secretary of the second respondent Association. It is further stated that as per the agreement the second respondent will have to maintain all safety precautions required as per the Rules for protecting the Government property and also to construct a butt wall levelling the sight, fencing, sheds, etc. It is further alleged that the W.P. (C) No.15201 of 2008 3 second and third respondents have trespassed into double the area allotted to them by the Government and they have put up a two storeyed building and further they are making all efforts to put up further construction. 4. In the writ petition, it is further stated that coming to know these omissions and commissions said to have been committed by the second and third respondents, the 4th respondent Executive Engineer has issued Ext.P9 notice, inter alia, directing the second and third respondents to show cause why the lease agreement said to have been executed by the State Government should not be cancelled. Further it is stated that coming to know the various misdeeds said to have been committed by the second respondent association, the petitioner organization has already filed Ext.P8 representation before the concerned Grama Panchayat. It is the grievance of the petitioner before this Court that though Ext.P9 notice was issued by the Executive Engineer, and after it was served on the third respondent, nothing has been done by the Executive Engineer. 5. The other complaint is that though the petitioner organization has filed a representation before the concerned Grama Panchayat, the Grama Panchayat has not taken any action on the representation filed by the petitioner organization. Therefore, the W.P. (C) No.15201 of 2008 4 petitioner organization is before us for the reliefs indicated by us earlier. 6. The respondents have filed their counter affidavits before us denying the assertions and allegations made by the petitioner organization. 7. In our opinion, at this stage, it may not be necessary for us to go into the allegations/assertions made by the petitioner organization and its denial by the respondents. For the present, in our opinion, we need only to direct the Executive Engineer who has issued Ext.P9 notice, and to which the second respondent association has already filed its reply, to consider the same and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible after hearing the petitioner organization as well as the second respondent association. While doing so, the Executive Engineer will not be influenced by any one of the advices that may be issued to him by the superior authorities. 8. In our opinion, the other prayer sought for by the petitioner organization, namely a direction to the Grama Panchayat to consider Ext.P8 representation also requires to be granted by us. 9. Therefore, we direct the Grama Panchayat, namely the 8th respondent herein, to consider the representation filed by the petitioner organization in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of W.P. (C) No.15201 of 2008 5 hearing to all the contesting respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court's order. 7. While disposing of this writ petition we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner organization as well as the second respondent association to put forth all their claims before the concerned authorities. 8. Writ petition is disposed of with the above observations and directions. 9. In view of the order passed in the writ petition the relief sought for in I.A.No.8339 of 2008 need not be considered at this stage. Accordingly, the said application stands rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns