IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2011 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32506 of 2011(K) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. SREEKANTHA SHENOY, S/O.RAMCHANDRA SHENOY, AGED 41 YEARS, PUTHENKADUMADOM, ANDHAKARANAZHI P.O., PADINJATTINKARA THEKKUM MURI, THURAVOOR SOUTH VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. SREEKUMARA SHENOY, S/O.RAMCHANDRA SHENOY AGED 39 YEARS OF DO. DO. BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI. GEORGE MATHEW SRI.DIPU JAMES RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZH-688 001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, CHERTHALA TALUK, CHERTHALA-688 524. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THURAVOOR SOUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA-688 532. 4. SAROJINI VALLI ALIAS VIMALA NAICK, VIMALA NIVAS, A.N.PURAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 121. 5. KRISHNA SHENOY, PLUTHENKADUMADAM, ANTHAKARANZHI P.O.THURAVOOR SOUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA-688 532. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.M.J. RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 32506/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT NO.2571405 DATED 18/7/2011 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT NO.2571406 DATED 18/7/2011 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. P3: COPY OF PETITION IN MC.294/2011 DATED 25/11/2011 FILED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF REPORT NO.196/11 DATED 28/11/2011 OF 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 32506 of 2011 K ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 7th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioners say that, complaining of the obstruction of water channel by respondents 4 and 5, they made Ext.P3 petition before the first respondent under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also stated that thereupon the first respondent has obtained Ext.P4 report from the third respondent and that in spite of it, proceedings are still remain inconclusive. It is complaining of the above, the writ petition has been filed. 2. In the nature of the order which is proposed to be passed, it is unnecessary to issue notice to the party respondents. 3. Since the complaint of the petitioners is mainly regarding the delay in finalising the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3, what is required in this writ petition is to direct the first respondent to take further action on Ext.P3, in the light W.P.(C) No.32506/2011 : 2 : of Ext.P4 report and with notice to the parties concerned. This shall be done, at any rate, within eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. 4. It is clarified that, in the event the petitioners so desire, it will be open to them to apply for interlocutory orders, in which event, it will be dealt with in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/07/12 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge