IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2011 / 22ND ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 27142 of 2011(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. BASIL PAUL, MANAYATH HOUSE, PAZHAMTHOTTAM P.O.-683 565, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. BINOY MATHEW, PLACHERIMOLATH HOUSE, PAZHAMTHOTTAM P.O.-683 565, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.SIMLA PRABHAKARAN SRI.ARUN ALEX RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AIKARANAD NORTH VILLAGE, KADAYIRUPPU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 565. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU, PERUMBAVUR P.O. ERNAKULAM DT-683 542. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA PO-686 661. 4. SRI.ABRAHAM RAJU, EDAYANAL HOUSE, PAZHAMTHOTTAM P.O., AYIKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD-683 565. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.P.PADMALAYA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.27142/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1- PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS ALONG WITH 15 OTHER AFFECTED PERSONS BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2- PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT nO.1 TO RESPONDENT NO.3 WITH REGARD TO THE ILLEGAL HIGH HANDED ACTION OF RESPONDENT NO.4. EXHIBIT P3- PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.11.2007 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT PERMITTING HIM TO FILL HIS LAND WITH SOIL. EXHIBIT P4- PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 TO RESPONDENT NO.4. EXHIBIT P5- PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE MAP OF FIELD NO.61 OF AIKARANAD NORTH VILLAGE, TAKEN FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE REGISTER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 27142 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 14th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioners complain that on account of the reclamation of property of the 4th respondent, flow in the water channel near to the property is affected. It is stated that complaining of the above, they made Ext.P1 representation to the 3rd respondent and that the 1st respondent has also submitted report confirming the grievances. It is stated that despite the above, the 3rd respondent has not issued any orders on Ext.P1, as a result of which, the nuisance created by the 4th respondent still continues. It is with this allegation the writ petition has been filed. 2. Since the complaint of the petitioners is one of inaction on the part of the 3rd respondent, it is unnecessary for this Court to go into the merits of the allegations raised nor is it necessary to issue notice to the 4th respondent before disposing of the writ petition. In the circumstances, without expressing anything on the merits and leaving it entirely open to the 3rd respondent to take appropriate action on Ext.P1 with notice to the petitioners and the WPC No. 27142/11 :2 : 4th respondent, the writ petition is disposed of directing that appropriate action be taken on Ext.P1. This shall be done by the 3rd respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp