IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2011 / 21ST SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 18758 of 2011(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.AUSTIN, TC 14/1263(3), WILLINGTON AVENUE, OBSERVATORY HILLS, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.BALACHANDRAN (KULASEKHARAM) SRI.V.R.GOPU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.VAMADEVAN, PRAVAH, TC 14/785, WILLINGTON AVENUE, OBSERVATORY HILLS, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 3. K.K.NARAYANAN, ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BUILDING SUB DIVISION, KERALA PWD, NEDUMANGAD, PIN-695 002. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, ROADS AND BRIDGES, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 5. JAYAKUMARI, OVERSEAR, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF ASST. ENGINEER (BUILDINGS), FORT SECTION, BEHIND SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 6. TOWN PLANNER, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 7. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.J.RAJASREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18758 of 2011(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN COMPLAINT NO.285/2010 DTD.30.3.2011 EXT.P2: COPY OF O.S.NO.630/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD.6.12.2006 EXT.P3: COPY OF THE IMPLEADING PETITION DTD.4.1.2007 EXT.P4: COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DTD.24.11.2008 EXT.P5 (A), : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO.11984/2010 DTD.13.8.2010 (B) & © : PROCEEDINGS OF THE ADDL. TAHSILDAR DTD.25.10.2010, THE REPORT AND PLAN DTD.20.10.2010 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.18758 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was the complainant in Complaint No.285/2010 before the Kerala Lok Ayukta. In that complaint, the relief sought for was an investigation regarding an alleged encroachment of the Government land by the 1st respondent with the connivance of the other respondents and to recommend to the competent authority to remove the injustice and hardship caused to the petitioner and to restore the puramboke land to the Government. The Lok Ayukta rejected the complaint by Ext.P1 order. It is challenging Ext.P1 the writ petition is filed. 2. The reasoning of the Lok Ayukta is that the issue raised by the petitioner is pending consideration of the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram in O.S.No.630/2006 filed by the 1st respondent and that, there was no material to hold that there was any maladministration or favouritism, as alleged W.P(C) No.18758 of 2011 2 by the petitioner. 3. Ext.P2 is the plaint in the suit mentioned above. The defendants in the suit are the State of Kerala, District Collector, and Tahsildar and the Taluk Surveyor. The allegation is that the plaint schedule property is belongs to the 1st respondent and that the at the instance of the petitioner, attempt was being made to demolish the boundary. It is on that basis, the following relief is sought. “(a) A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining and prohibiting the defendants from demolishing any portion of the boundaries of the plaint schedule property or doing anything to obstruct to the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property.” 4. Thus although in the allegation of favouritism or maladministration has been made, in sum and substance, the issue raised by the petitioner is one which is pending before the Civil Court. Further on materials available, the Lok Ayukta come to a conclusion that there is nothing to disclose any maladministration. These two conclusions are unassailable. 5. In such circumstances, I do not find any error of W.P(C) No.18758 of 2011 3 jurisdiction committed by the Lok Ayukta warranting interference in this writ petition. 6. Needless to say that, this judgment or Ext.P1 order will not prevent the petitioner from seeking appropriate reliefs at the appropriate stage. The Writ Petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ab W.P(C) No.18758 of 2011 4