IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 22908 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ PANKAJAKSHAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.K.K.NAIR, 'GANGA', 7/284, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, SAKTHI NAGAR COLONY, IRINJALAKUDA. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. IRINJALAKUDA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA. 2. SECRETARY, IRINJALAKUDA MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA. 3. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THRISSUR DIVISION, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. R3 BY S.C. MR. A. JAYASANKAR R1 & R2 BY S.C. MR. K.K. CHANDRAN PILLAI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 22908 OF 2008 B = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of August 2008 J U D G M E N T Heard both sides. 2. It was on receipt of Ext. P6 communication from the Secretary of the respondent Municipality, requiring the petitioner to appear before him, the writ petition was filed. 3. It is seen that by Ext. P3 notice, petitioner was directed by the 2nd respondent to remove the accumulated read earth and thereupon the petitioner filed Ext. P4 appeal before the 1st respondent. Ext. P4 was directed to be considered by Ext. P5 judgment of this Court. However, despite the direction that the 1st respondent should hear Ext. P4, it was the 2nd respondent who issued Ext. P6 requiring the petitioner to appear before him. It was complaining that the 2nd respondent had no authority to deal with Ext. P4 this writ petition was filed. 4. Standing counsel for the respondent Municipality who entered appearance on notice submits that on receipt of Ext. P3, though it was open to the petitioner to show cause against Ext. P3, he had chosen to file Ext. P4 appeal. It is stated that in pursuance to Ext. P4 the Secretary issued Ext. P6, heard all parties and reported the matter to the Standing W.P.(C) No. 22908 OF 2008 -2- Committee of the Municipality. According to him, the Standing Committee reported the matter to the Council and the Council by Ext. P6, confirmed the Secretary's communication vide Ext. P3. It is also stated that as the area is a low lying one, in order to avoid continued accumulation of water, the soil had to be removed and that it has been done. 5. Irrespective of the factual controversy involved, the fact remains that what was directed to be considered as per Ext. P5 judgment, was Ext. P4 appeal, which ought to have been dealt with by the Council of the Municipality. Admittedly that has not been done. That precisely is the grievance in the writ petition. 6. Taking into account this fact, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the Council of the Municipality shall hear the petitioner and others interested in the matter and take a final decision on Ext. P4. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-