IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 2703 of 2010(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- NARAYANAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.INNAYAKKAN, VERALIPPARA HOUSE, OTTAPPILAVU P.O., KORATTIKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU SRI.LOWEL CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, THRISSUR. 2. KADAVALOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KARIKKAD P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, REP. BY SECRETARY. 3. SECRETARY, KADAVALOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KARIKKAD P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. THAMPI, THOLOTH HOUSE, OTTAPPILAVU P.O. KORATTIKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN FOR R4 SRI.SAIJO HASSAN FOR R4 SRI.A.S.SABU FOR R4 SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN FOR R4 SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI FOR R4 SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. FOR R4 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.2703/10 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF the COCONUT TTEE WHICH IS SLANTING AND STANDING JUST OVER THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.A6-1500/09 DT 29.8.09 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 24.10.2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEARING NO.A3-11757/09 DT 26.10.2009. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO.A2/1500/09 DT 23.11.09 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 2703 OF 2010 (K) ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The complaint in the writ petition is that follow up action on Ext.P5 order of the 2nd respondent is not taken by the said authority. Ext.P5 is an order passed by the 2nd respondent requiring the 4th respondent to cut and remove the coconut tree standing in his property, which is dangerous to the structures of the petitioner. 2. The 4th respondent has no dispute about the validity of the order. If that be the factual position, 2nd and 3rd respondents are bound to ensure that the order is implemented. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing respondents 2 and 3 to ensure that Ext.P5 order is enforced. This shall be done on the production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp