IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2293 of 2008(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: APPLE A DAY PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, APPLE TOWER, PALARIVATTOM -EDAPPALLY BYE-PASS ROAD, EDAPPALLY (P.O.), KOCHI – 682 024, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY K.A. SAJU, MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.G.SHRIKUMAR SRI.SREEJITH S.NAIR RESPONDENTS: 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI. 2. THRIKKAKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KAKKANAD P.O., KOCHI – 682 030, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. KUNJUMON, CHULLIPARAMBIL, HOUSE NO. 544, THRIKKAKARA P.O., KENNADIMUKKU (CHERY) 4. RAMESH P.K., PARAYATHIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO. 645, THRIKKAKARA P.O., KENNADIMUKKU (CHERY) 5. SAJAN E.A, MADATHIPARAMBIL, HOUSE NO. 585, THRIKKAKARA P.O., KENNADIMUKKU (CHERY) 6. SULOCHANA, MADATHIPARAMBIL, HOUSE NO. 518, THRIKKAKARA P.O., KENNADIMUKKU (CHERY) BY ADV. SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== W.P.(C). No. 2293 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 18th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a builder constructing an apartment complex by name 'Big Apple' in Survey No. 160/14 in Vazhakkala village. According to the petitioner, the construction is being carried out strictly in accordance with the rules and on the basis of the requisite permission from the 2nd respondent Panchayat. The construction work started in the year 2006 and more than four floors in each block have already been completed. The piling operations, according to the petitioner, were completed as early as on 31.12.2006 without any demur from any of the neighbouring residents. The method of piling was such that it would not cause any damage to the adjacent buildings. But, respondents 3 to 6, who claim to be the neighbouring residents, have now filed Ext.P2 complaint before the 1st respondent RDO alleging damage to their houses and requesting his intervention in the matter. Even though the petitioner, on getting Ext.P3 notice from the 1st respondent asking him to appear before him at 11 a.m on 14.12.2007 in the matter, appeared before the 1st respondent ,the grievance of the petitioner is that the complainants (respondents 3 to 6 herein) did not turn up for the hearing and the matter is being W.P.(C) NO. 2293/2008 : 2 : postponed by the 1st respondent. In the mean while, respondents 3 to 6 are indulging in physical obstruction of the construction. Hence, this writ petition. 2. In as much as respondents 3 to 6 have approached the 1st respondent for redressal of their grievance and the petitioner is also willing to appear before the 1st respondent and make his submissions with regard to the complaint made by respondents 3 to 6, there is no reason why the 1st respondent should not dispose of Ext.P2 application expeditiously. It is particularly so since the construction of a multi- storied building is being obstructed causing heavy loss to the builder. Accordingly, the 1st respondent is directed to dispose of Ext.P2 complaint expeditiously and at any rate within two weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case there is any obstruction by respondents 3 to 6 to the construction pending disposal of Ext.P2, the petitioner is free to move the police. Respondents 3 to 6 having moved the R.D.O, cannot play hide and seek before the RDO and at the same time cause obstruction to the construction of the building. This writ petition is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv W.P.(C) NO. 2293/2008 : 3 :