IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2011 / 12TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 4124 of 2008(N) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: SUDHAKARAN NAIR, AGED 54, S/O. RAMAN NAIR, VADIKKANAKKATTU HOUSE, NELLAD KARA, MAZHUVANOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PWD, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD (ROADS), MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. ANILKUMAR, S/O. RAGHAVAN NAIR, AGED ABOUT 35, VADIKKANAKKATTU HOUSE, NELLAD KARA, MAZHUVANNOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 4. RAGHAVAN NAIR, S/O. GOVINDAN NAIR, AGED ABOUT 70, DO. DO. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.DILIP FOR R1& R2 ADV. SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE FOR R3 & R4 SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR FOR R3 & R4 SMT.M.N.MAYA FOR R3 & R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC 4124/2008 PETITIONE'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE POSITION OF THE PIPE LAID IN THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER BEARING NO.A1-2809/2000 DT. 27.5.02 EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAIN FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT ON 19.6.06 EXT. P4 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RDO MUVATTUPUZHA ON 22.6.06 EXT. P5 TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF VILLAGE OFFICER, MAZHUVANNOR BEARING NO.55/06 DT. 4.7.06 EXT. P6 TRUE COPY OF PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT ON 26.11.07 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 23.7.07 BY RDO MUVATTUPUZHA EXT.R3(b) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT. 12.12.07 BY RDO MUVATTUPUZHA /TRUE COPY/ P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.4124 of 2008 N ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the second respondent to construct a drainage and a culvert in the Mazhuvannoor-Mekkadampu road, near the property of the petitioner, so as to provide free flow of water from the northern side, to the southern side. An incidental relief is also sought for, to direct the second respondent to take immediate measures to remove the obstruction caused by the respondents 3 and 4 in the free flow of water through the pipe laid down from the property of the petitioner. 2. The respondents 3 and 4 have filed a counter affidavit pointing out that the averments and allegations levelled against the said respondents are not correct or proper. Pursuant to the complaint preferred by the petitioner, the matter was enquired into and Exhibit P4 complaint preferred before the RDO was finalised by passing an order on 12.12.2007, a copy of which has been produced and marked as Exhibit R3(b), whereby, it has been observed that, it is for the petitioner himself to act upon the cause, by constructing a 'thodu' so as to drain out the excess water to the western portion of his property. WPC 4124/08 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main grievance of the petitioner is against respondents 1 and 2, particularly when Exhibit P2 was issued by the second respondent on 27.5.2002, pursuant to the petition dated 12.4.2002 preferred by the petitioner. Ext.P2 reads as follows: “1. Notices have been issued to Sri.Raghavan Nair and his son Anilkumar by the Assistant Engineer, Roads, Muvattupuzha to provide necessary facilities to you. 2. The approach road was tarred in the level it was existing. The approach road is a public Panchayat road. Earthern drain can be included in the ordinary repair works subject to availability of funds. 3. Improvement works on the above reach of road can be proposed in special repair works only on getting sufficient funds on the above head.” From the contents of Exhibit P2, it is revealed that the concerned approach road is a Panchayat road and that the remedial measures to the extent possible can be made only subject to the availability of funds. It is also revealed that the Panchayat is not in the array of parties and that the subsequent developments are not discernible, as to sanctioning of funds from the Panchayat, if any. 4. There is no case for the petitioner that he has approached the concerned local authority in this regard. The grievance of the petitioner as projected in the representation dated 12.4.2002, WPC 4124/08 3 preferred before the second respondent and referred to in Ext.P2 appears to be with reference to the property of the respondents 3 and 4 situated on the southern side of the road, so as to facilitate free flow of water from the petitioner's property, across the road through the property of the respondents 3 and 4. The grievance projected by the petitioner in Exhibit P4 petition preferred before the RDO is the same. Pursuant to Exhibit P4 complaint, a report was called for from the Village Officer, who submitted Exhibit P5 in this regard. However, it is seen from the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 3 and 4 and also from the order passed by the RDO on 12.12.2007, that a local inspection was conducted and the proceedings were finalised by the RDO as per Exhibit R3(b) order, observing that petitioner had to work out his own solution by constructing a 'thodu' on the southern side of his property, so as to have free flow of water to the western side. 5. Obviously, there is no case for the petitioner that he has subjected Exhibit R3(b) to challenge. On the other hand, the case of the petitioner as stated in paragraph 9 of the writ petition is that, after filing Exhibit P4 complaint before the RDO and the submission of Exhibit P5 report by the Village Officer, no action has been taken by the RDO, which does not appear to be correct, in view of the finalisation of the proceedings as per Exhibit R3(b) order dated WPC 4124/08 4 12.12.2007. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the grievance of the petitioner is not liable to be considered by this Court. Petitioner is at liberty to pursue the matter by approaching the concerned local authority or the Government with regard to the construction of a culvert or drainage and also for providing the particulars of 'fund allocation' and other incidental aspects. No interference is called for. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. (P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge) tkv