IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2011 / 14TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21407 of 2011(A) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MADHAVAN NAIR, AGED 64 YEARS,S/O.LATE GOVINDAN NAIR, KIZHAKKUMMURI,P.O.KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN, SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN SRI.M.N.MANMADAN, SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED, SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KUTTIADI IRRIGATION PROJECT, CANAL SECTION NO.1,KAKKODI, PIN-673 611. 3. PRASANNAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.SREENIVASAN NAIR,P.O.KIZHAKKUMMURI, KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE-673 611. R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.21407/2011 A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 SERIES: PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE DRAINAGE PASSING ALONG WITH THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE RESIDENTS OF THE LOCALITY BEFORE THE KAKKODI GRAMA PANCHAYATH DTD. 21/07/2011. P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 13/06/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHER RESIDENTS BEFORE THE KUTTIADI IRRIGATION PROJECT. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AEN1/G/2011 DTD. 5/07/2011 SENT BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 18/07/2011 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21407 of 2011-A ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4 communication issued by the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, 3rd respondent blocked the flow of water through a drainage passing through the southern boundary of his property and repeated complaints were filed against the 3nd respondent, before the Panchayat and also before the 2nd respondent. 2. However, he has now been issued Ext.P4 wherein the 2nd respondent had alleged that the petitioner has constructed a new drainage into the public drainage and that waste water is discharged into the public drainage. On this basis he has been asked to block the new canal allegedly constructed by him. On receipt of Ext.P4, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation before the 2nd respondent denying the allegations in Ext.P4. However, without taking any action to redress his complaint, further action is allegedly taken on the basis of Ext.P4. In these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 3. Thus the case of the petitioner is that the allegations in Ext.P4 are totally incorrect. This necessarily requires the appreciation of facts to ascertain the correctness of what the -2- W.P.(C)21407/2011 petitioner has stated in Ext.P5 filed before the 2nd respondent. This can be done only if the 2nd respondent conducts an inspection of the site in question and if what the petitioner alleges is correct, necessarily Ext.P4 will have to be recalled and on the other hand, if petitioner says is incorrect necessarily Ext.P4 should be implemented. 4. Since such a course of action is possible only on ascertaining the state of affairs as it exists at site, I direct that on the production of a copy of this judgment, the 2nd respondent will conduct inspection of the site with notice to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and take further action in the matter as stated above. 5. Inspection shall be conducted at any rate within three weeks on production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. rka -3- W.P.(C)21407/2011 a copy of this writ petition.