IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 2485 of 2007(U) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- DAVIS, S/O. ATTOKARAN OUSEPH, KIZHAKECHALAKUDY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI. G. SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. THE CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SHABU, S/O. DEVASSYKUTTY, ATTOKARAN HOUSE, KIZHAKECHALAKUDY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. SHAJAN, S/O. DEVASSYKUTTY, ATTOKARAN HOUSE, KIZHAKECHALAKUDY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR SMT.K.USHA SRI.RAJESH. K.RAJU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.2485 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents that the issue involved in this writ petition is purely a civil dispute and two suits are pending before the civil court and therefore this court may not invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for granting the reliefs sought for. Sri.Ashok Kumar, learned standing counsel for the Municipality also submitted that this is a case where two warring persons have unnecessarily dragged the municipality to this court. Sri.G.Sreekumar, counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the domain of the Municipality to ensure that no construction is made in violation of the Kerala Municipalities Building Rules. Ext.P3 complaint has been submitted by the petitioner before the Municipality and one of the allegations is that respondents 2 and 3 do not have any permit from the Municipality to carry out the construction. Inspite of Ext.P3 containing such serious allegations, WPC.No.2485/07 2 Municipality has not taken any action. It may be correct to say that the competent authority to resolve civil disputes between the parties is the civil court and not the Municipality or even this court under Article 226. At the same time, the allegation in Ext.P3 is also that the respondents 2 and 3 do not have any permit from the first respondent for carrying out any construction and I feel that the Municipality should look into it. Under these circumstances, I direct the first respondent to consider Ext.P3 and conduct necessary enquiries including a local inspection of the site and take a correct decision. Before taking a decision, the Municipality will hear the petitioner as well as the party respondents also. If the secretary of the Municipality comes to an opinion during the course of hearing that the issue raised can be resolved only by the civil court, it is open to the Secretary to indicate that in his order. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE WPC.No.2485/07 2 sv.