IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 31435 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P.K.RADHA, W/O.LATE RAVEENDRAN, AGED 60 PUSHPAMANGALATH HOUSE THRIKKARIYOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM,ERNAKULAM. 2. BARATHY SUKUMARAN, W/O.SUKUMARAN, AGED 48,PUSHPAMANGALATH HOUSE THRIKKARIYOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RENJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. NELLIKUZHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NELLIKUZHY,KOTHAMANGALAM,ERNAKULAM-PIN-686692. 2. THOMAS RAPHEL, S/O.RAPHEL, AGED 42,AMBALAKKATTU HOUSE, NEAR PANAMA JUNCTION, THRIKKARIYOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM,ERNAKULAM-PIN-686692. 3. CHERIYAN RAPHEL,AGED 46,AMBALAKKATTU HOU SE,NEAR PANAMA JUNCTION, THRIKKARIYOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM,ERNAKULAM-PIN-686692. ADV. SRI.P.FAZIL FOR R2 SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C)No.31435/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. PHOTOCOPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2. PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM INJUNCTION OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT MUVATTUPUZHA IN O.S.NO.285 OF 20108 EXT.P3. PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT PREPARED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN O.S.NO.285 OF 2010 / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.31435 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 are neighbours. When the second respondent commenced construction of a residential building, the petitioners filed a representation before the Secretary of the first respondent Grama Panchayat alleging that the construction is in violation of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. On receipt of the said complaint, the Secretary of the first respondent Grama Panchayat conducted a local inspection and thereafter issued Ext.P1 memo dated 6.9.2010 calling upon the second respondent to forthwith stop the construction. It appears respondents 2 and 3 did not comply with the said order. The petitioners thereupon instituted O.S.No.385 of 2010 in the Court of the Munsiff of Muvattupuzha. In that suit, they filed I.A.No.2521 of 2010 for an interim order of injunction in terms of the relief of injunction prayed for in the plaint. On that application the court below passed Ext.P2 order of injunction restraining the second respondent herein from putting up any W.P(C).No.31435 of 2010 -:2:- construction in violation of the building rules until further orders. It is thereafter that this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:- i) issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1st respondent to take necessary steps to stop the illegal construction made by the 2nd and 3rd respondents in the property of the 2nd respondent. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ order to the 1st respondent to immediately demolish the building constructed by the respondent No.2 in his property as it is in violation of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act 1994 and Building Rules. 2. Shorn of details, the main relief sought in the writ petition is to direct the first respondent Grama Panchayat to stop the construction made by respondents 2 and 3 and to demolish the building put up by them. The pleadings disclose that seeking the very same reliefs the petitioner has already instituted O.S.No.385 of 2010 in the Court of the Munsiff of Muvattupuzha and in that suit an ad interim order of injunction has been passed. An Advocate Commissioner was also appointed in that suit and that the Commissioner has filed a report and sketch. A Full Bench of this Court has in Reena v. Geena, 2010 (2) KLT 155 (FB), W.P(C).No.31435 of 2010 -:3:- held that a litigant should not be allowed to prosecute parallel remedies, one in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the other in the civil court by way of a suit. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Full Bench of this Court I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to move this Court by filing a writ petition, seeking the reliefs prayed for in the suit filed by them in the court of competent jurisdiction. I accordingly decline jurisdiction and dismiss the writ petition. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.31435 of 2010 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 15th November, 2010