IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37801 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.N.KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O.NARAYANAN, PARAMEL HOUSE, KAITHAKKADKARA, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KUNNATHUNADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KUMARAPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN NO.683 565. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. P.N.BALACHANDRAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, PAREMEL HOUSE, KAITHAKKADKARA, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN NO.683 562. ADV. SRI.K.R.KURUP FOR R2 SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR FOR R2 SRI.K.J.ABRAHAM FOR R2 SRI.LAVARAJ M.G. FOR R2 SRI.JOSE KURIAN FOR R2 SRI.C.R.VINOD KUMAR FOR R2 SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 37801 of 2010(A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 31/3/2010. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 31/3/2010. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/3/2010 IN I.A.NO.2866/09 IN O.S.NO.360/09 OFMUNSIFF COURT, PERUMBAVOOR. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 8/7/2010 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. TKS // TRUE COPY // P.S. to Judge C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.37801 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 16th February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner and the second respondent are siblings. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent is constructing a residential building in the nearby property violating the provisions under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and the conditions in the building permit. Raising such grievances the petitioner has preferred Ext.P1 and P4 complaints before the first respondent. It is the inaction on the part of the first respondent to take appropriate action on Exts.P1 and P4 that constrained the petitioner to file this writ petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel for the first respondent and also the learned counsel for the second respondent. 3. Admittedly, Exts.P1 and P4 complaints are pending before the first respondent. Exts.P1 and P4 carry allegations of violation of the provisions in the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and also violation of conditions in the building permit. In short, according to the petitioner, the second respondent has effected construction in deviation to the conditions of the building permit and disregarding the rules in the Kerala WP(C).No.37801/2010 2 Municipality Building Rules. The first respondent is competent to consider the said grievances of the petitioner raised in Exts.P1 and P4. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Exts.P1 and P4 and pass appropriate orders/take appropriate action, in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioner and the second respondent. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS