IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 31749 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- RUKKIATH BEEVI, ALUPURATHU VADAKKATHIL, KALLALIBHAGOM.P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY-690546. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY-690518. 2. THODIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THODIYOOR, KOLLAM- 690 537. 3. K.BIJU MAMBAZHATHU EDAPPURA, KALLALIBHAGOM P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM- 690 546. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI T K VIPINDAS FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 31749 of 2010 P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the first respondent to afford adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner to demolish the unauthorised construction made by obstructing the ingress and egress of the petitioner towards her property; ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the first respondent to pursue with Exts.P1 and P4d demolish the obstruction caused to the ingress and egress to the petitioner's property.” W.P.(C).No. 31749 of 2010 2 2. The petitioner is the wife of one Abdul Azeez, who is working abroad. The husband of the petitioner is the absolute owner and in possession of 8.49 Ares of property in Re-Sy.No. 257/9 of Kallelibhagom Village, Karunagappally. The third respondent had approached the Ombudsman for Local Self Government complaining that he wanted to construct a compound wall for the burial ground used by the Scheduled Caste people in the locality. The said construction was obstructed by the second respondent stating that if the compound wall is constructed for the burial ground along the pathway, it will obstruct the ingress and egress towards the property lying near the pathway. Hence the Ombudsman dismissed the said complaint. 3. The Panchayat Committee had also held that it is a public road and if the compound wall is constructed at the proposed site, it will affect the ingress and egress of the people residing nearby. The petitioner had filed Ext.P3 representation before the first respondent to implement the order passed by the Ombudsman directing the second W.P.(C).No. 31749 of 2010 3 respondent to remove all the obstructions caused to the petitioner. She also filed Ext.P4 representation before the first respondent to comply with the order of the Ombudsman. The first respondent inspected the property but no action was taken. 4. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that on 30.9.2010 the Panchayat has already removed the compound wall referred to in the order of the Ombudsman. Presently there is no obstruction to the petitioner to pass through the property. 5. We record the said submission and close this Writ Petition. We leave it open to the petitioner to pursue her remedy before the competent authority, if there is any grievance existing. (K.M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm