IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 WA.No. 405 of 2008 --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.28950/2007 DATED 01.11.2007 .................... APPELLANT/WRIT-PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------- MUHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O.BEERAN KUTTY, VALIYAPEEDIYAKKAL HOUSE, PONMUDAM DESOM, P.O.PONMUNDAM, TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, MALAPPURAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.405 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 20th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. Petitioner has filed Ext.P1 complaint before the District Collector, inter alia, alleging that the neighbour of the petitioner who is running a nursery school in the adjoining property is excavating mud from the property by using huge earth excavating machineries. It is further stated in the writ petition that the property of the petitioner is lying at a higher level and due to the indiscriminate removal of mud from their property, the property of the petitioner is losing lateral support and there is an imminent danger of the property in the lateral portion of the building of the petitioner falling over the nursery school. It is further alleged that the respondent authority is not taking any action on the complaint filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for appropriate direction. 2. In the writ petition filed, the petitioner has not made the school authorities as one of the respondents. They are, in our opinion, not only necessary but also proper parties for effective disposal of the writ petition. On that sole ground alone the writ petition can be dismissed. 3. However, the learned Single Judge taking note of the original suit filed by the petitioner in No. 199 of 2003, wherein the petitioner has sought for a permanent mandatory injunction against the school authorities, has come to the conclusion that parallel proceedings are impermissible and, therefore, has rejected the writ petition. W.A.No.405 of 2008 2 4. In the original suit filed, the prayer is against the school authorities. The complaint filed before the District Collector is more or less identical with the prayers made in the original suit. Having filed the original suit, the petitioner can necessarily seek appropriate interim orders from the trial court itself. Keeping that in view, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the petitioner cannot maintain parallel proceedings one by filing an original suit and one by way of complaint before the District Collector. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error whatsoever which would call for our interference in this writ appeal. 5. Therefore, the writ appeal filed by the petitioner requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE vns