IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14140 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MARY CHEEKKU, W/O LATE CHEEKKU, AGED 69, PURATHIL HOUSE, THUNDATHUMKADAVU, VARAPUZHA P.O., PIN-683517. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.SARATHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, VARAPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VARAPUZHA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. SEEMA JOSE, W/O.JOSE, AGED 30, NEDUMTHARA HOUSE, THUNDATHUMKADAVU, VARAPUZHA P.O., PIN-683517. BY GP MATHEW VADAKKAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 14140 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF MAY, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner has some grievance against the construction of a building, which the third respondent is putting up. The petitioner alleges in Ext.P3 that the third respondent is encroaching on the property of the petitioner. If that be so, the petitioner's remedy lies before the civil court. Secondly, she says that the construction will be in violation of the postal CRZ (Coastal Regulation Zone)notification. No specific violation is shown. Thirdly, the petitioner states that in spite of the complaint, the first respondent, Secretary to the Grama Panchayat is not taking any action. This writ petition is filed on 22.5.2009 stating that Ext.P3 dated 4.5.2009 is not being acted upon. The petitioner again states that the third respondent is carrying out the alleged construction on the basis of some scheme. I am afraid that this writ petition may ultimately trigger only a state of lawlessness, in as much as, if I were to direct consideration of Ext.P3 which is not even one month old, I Wp(c) 14140/2009 2 have to assume that the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat has refused or failed to exercise his statutory and public duty. After a judgment is issued at this point of time, it would be too premature and would ultimately only aid an action being triggered under the cover of such a judgment. Hence without prejudice to the petitioner seeking relief before the civil court, and further prosecuting any lawful complaint before the first respondent, and also without prejudice to the petitioner complaining to the higher authorities in the panchayat, including the panchayat committee about any continued inaction of the Secretary, this writ petition is dismissed. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/26/5