IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2011 / 4TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23211 of 2011(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJEEV M.G., S/O.GOVINDANKUTTY MENON, MEKKARAYILE, AROOR P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JUDE ISSAC RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY, PATTANAKKAD SECTION,CHERTHALA. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ALAPPUZHA. SR GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23211 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.5.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.7.11 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ............................................. W.P.(C).23211/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 26th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1, a notice requiring him to shift his shop from the side of the National Highway, on the allegation that the same is causing obstruction to the pedestrians. While the petitioner denies the allegation, he submits that he had filed Ext.P2 representation to the second respondent. According to the petitioner without dealing with Ext.P2, Ext.P1 notice is sought to be implemented. 2. In my view, this is essentially a matter for the second respondent to be looked into. If, as stated by the petitioner, he has filed Ext.P2 representation, I direct that the second respondent shall deal with the same, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from today. 3. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs