IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 30371 of 2006(N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. KOCHUNNI, S/O.MOHAMMAD, POOVATHUM VEEDU, PINARMUNDA KARA, KUNNATHUNAD VILLAGE. 2. K.B.MURALI, S/O.BHASKARAN, KOIKKARA HOUSE, KUMARAPURAM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEPAN SRI.DEEPAK T.NEDUNGADAN SMT.P.SUMITHRA RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, KUNNATHUNAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KUMARAPURAM PO., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNATHUNADU POLICE STATION, PATTIMATTOM. 4. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KAKKANAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. THE PRESIDENT, KUNNATHUNAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KUMARAPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJKUMAR ADV. SRI.PEARLY JOSE - R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).30371/2006-N APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 17/08/2000. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN TO 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 23/10/2006. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVE TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 23/10/2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // Rs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 30371 of 2006 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: JULY 30, 2008 JUDGMENT In this writ petition the complaint is essentially regarding the location of a bus stop at Kumarapuram. From the facts stated in the writ petition it is seen that on 17.8.2000, the 4th respondent by Ext.P1 decision, decided on the location of the bus stop after convening a meeting of all concerned. However, the location of the bus stop was shifted on 23.10.2006. Complaining against this decision, petitioners claim to have filed Ext.P3 representation before the 4th respondent. In this writ petition what is alleged is that despite Ext.P3 representation having been made to the 4th respondent, action has not been taken on the representation so far. 2. The learned Government Pleader submits that on verification it is revealed that the 4th respondent has not received Ext.P3. It is also stated that if the local residents WP(C) 30371/06 2 have any genuine complaint regarding the location of the bus stop, they are free to approach the 4th respondent, in which case,their grievances will be considered. I record this submission. 3. However, on facts, since Ext.P3 has not been received by the 4th respondent, the direction as sought for in this writ petition cannot be issued. Irrespective of this, it is clarified that in the event the petitioners or anybody else have any grievance about the location of the bus stop, it will be open to them to move the 4th respondent for appropriate reliefs. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-