IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3907 of 2010(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ASOKAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. KUNJUKUNJU, KAVINTE PURAKIL VEETTIL, MAHADEVIKADU MURI, KARTHIKAPPALLY VILLAGE, HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KARTHIKAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KARTHIKAPPALLY P.O., HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY, KARTHIKAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KARTHIKAPPALLY P.O., HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. MURALI, S/O. KUTTAPPAN, PUTHENVEETTIL, MAHADEVIKADU MURI, KARTHIKAPPALLY VILLAGE, HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DIST. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.3907 of 2010 (K) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner's allegation is that the 3rd respondent has trespassed in to the Panchayat road and made certain constructions. He relies on Ext.P5, the reply given to a request made under the Right to Information Act, to substantiate this contention. 2. Irrespective of this, it is seen that he has already moved the 2nd respondent by filing Ext.P6, and therefore, it is for the 2nd respondent to deal with the complaint. In view of this, without expressing anything on the merits of the contentions raised and leaving it entirely open to the 2nd respondent to deal with the matter, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P6 with notice to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg