IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 33299 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.1573/2007 of PRL.M.C.,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- APPUKUTTAN NAIR, AGED 76 YEARS, S/O.AMMU AMMA, MOOKKOLI HOUSE, PANICKERMOOLA, KATTOOR, THRISSUR DT. BY ADVS. MR.RENJITH THAMPAN, SMT.P.A.ANITHA. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. BASHEER, S/O.VALIYAKATH MOHAMMED, PANIKKARMOOLA, KATTOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. M/S.BHARATI INFRATEL REP. BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, P.JAYAPALA MENON. 3. KATTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. SECRETARY, KATTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KATTOOR, THRISSUR DIST. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.33299 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1573 of 2007 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Irinjalakkuda. In the pending suit, instituted against two others, first and second respondents/defendants, petitioner/plaintiff applied for impleadment of the local authority, Panchayath as the additional third defendant. Notice was issued to the proposed defendant, and after hearing both sides, court below disallowed the application for impleadment. Ext.P6 is the copy of that order. Plaintiff had also moved another application for amendment of the plaint consequential to the impleadment of the additional defendant, if so allowed. In view of the dismissal of the impleadment petition, amendment application was also dismissed vide Ext.P7 order. Propriety and correctness of Exts.P6 and P7 orders are challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C).No.33299 of 2009 - O 2 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and it is dispensed with. 3. Ext.P2 is the copy of the suit. Suit is one for perpetual prohibitory injunction to restrain respondents 1 and 2/defendants as originally impleaded from making use of C schedule path way for vehicular access to the first respondent's property and also from putting up any light posts in the plaint schedule property. During the pendency of the suit petitioner/plaintiff moved Ext.P4 application for impleadment of the local authority as the additional third defendant. In the sworn affidavit in support of that application, it is stated that an electric post had been put up in the plaint property by the proposed defendant in collusion with the first defendant and it has to be removed by a decree of mandatory injunction. Notice had been issued earlier to the local authority was also canvassed to contend that there was statutory compliance in respect of the issue of notice before suing the local authority. Learned Munsiff after examining the materials found W.P.(C).No.33299 of 2009 - O 3 that the notice had been issued to the proposed defendant, local authority, long ago, and that being so, it will not assist the plaintiff in any manner for impleading the local authority as additional third defendant. Court below has taken note of the mandate covered under Section 249(1)(b) of the Kerala Panchayath Act, 1994, to reach a conclusion that once a notice is issued within six months the suit has to be filed for the reliefs claimed under the notice, if there was refusal on the part of the local authority to comply with the demand under the notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff argued before me that no such notice is required in the present case since what had been done by the local authority is , prima facie, illegal. To challenge such an illegal act notice as contemplated under Section 249 was not warranted, submits the counsel. Whatever be the merit of that submission, perusing the affidavit sworn to in support of the petition for impleadment of local authority, it is noticed that the only case canvassed was that there was statutory compliance of notice and not a case that no notice was required. So, in the given facts of the case, I do not find any W.P.(C).No.33299 of 2009 - O 4 impropriety or illegality in the conclusion formed by the learned Munsiff holding that impleadment of the local authority cannot be granted; but, I make it clear that the orders passed by the court below in Exts.P6 and P7 orders will not stand in the way of the plaintiff in seeking appropriate relief as against the local authority in appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-