IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17177 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANIKANDAN NAIR, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, MULLASSERIL VEEDU, MEENATHU CHERRY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.LEO GEORGE SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR SRI.K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KOLLAM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM. 3. SUSEELAN NAIR, SUSEEL BHAVAN, MEENATHU CHERRY, KAVANADU, KOLLAM. 4. VIJI, SUSEEL BHAVAN, MEENATHU CHERRY, KAVANADU, KOLLAM. R1 & R2 BY S.C. SHRI M.K. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.17177 of 2010-V - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a resident within the limits of the first respondent Corporation and he owns 15 cents of property wherein he is residing with his family. The petitioner submits that respondents 3 and 4 who own properties on the side of a public road starting from Anakkodu junction from Vadakkemuri - Sakthikulangara Temple Road, are trying to encroach upon the road resulting in reducing the width of the road to 1 meter from 1.9 meter. Thus, it is submitted that the same has resulted in obstructing the vehicular traffic. According to the petitioner, the said road is vested with the Corporation under Section 207 of the Kerala Municipality Act. 2. Aggrieved by the actions and commissions of respondents 3 and 4, the petitioner has approached the second respondent as per Ext.P2 representation, seeking for appropriate action in the matter. Failing to get any further action on the representation, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation before the District Collector. The communication Ext.P4 shows that the District Collector has forwarded Ext.P3 to the Revenue Divisional Officer for appropriate action. Learned counsel for the petitioner wpc 17177/2010 2 submitted that the first respondent Corporation also may examine the grievances raised in Ext.P2 representation. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submitted that the Corporation will consider the grievance raised in Ext.P2 after hearing both parties. 4. Therefore, there will be a direction to the second respondent to take a decision after conducting due enquiry on Ext.P2 with notice to the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4. The decision will be taken expeditiously. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/