IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 18TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 15938 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- C.A. RAVEENDRAN, S/O. AYYAPPAN, CHERAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUDUKKAD.P.O,SOUTH THURAVU, PUDUKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN SMT.NITA.N.S. SRI.BIJU SUKUMARAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, PUDUKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PUDUKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. C.A. CHANDRAN, S/O. AYYAPPAN, CHERAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUDUKKAD.P.O,SOUTH THURAVU, PUDUKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR. ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY FOR R3 SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) FOR R2 SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) FOR R2 SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR FOR R1 SMT.P.A.ANITHA FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 15938 OF 2010 (N) ===================== Dated this the 9th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Heard the counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and the learned standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 2. The case of the petitioner is that a building situated in Sy.No.173,4 and 8 of Thuravu Village in Pudukkad belongs to the petitioner and his brother the 2nd respondent. It is stated that for widening the national highway, a portion of the building was acquired and demolished, as a result of which, the remaining portion is in a dangerous condition. Petitioner submits that if any untoward incident happens, he too will be responsible, and that therefore, he does not want to retain the building any more. However, according to him, such suggestion was not acceptable to the 2nd respondent, and therefore, he made Ext.P4 request to the 1st respondent to take appropriate action in this matter. 3. In this writ petition, what is complained of is the alleged inaction of the 1st respondent on Ext.P4. Although the WPC No. 15938/10 :2 : counsel for the 2nd respondent sought time for filing counter affidavit disputing the assertion made by the petitioner, still in the nature of the relief that is sought for, it is not necessary for this Court to adjudicate the rival contentions on merits and I think the filing of such a counter affidavit is unnecessary. In that view of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P4 with notice to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. This shall be done, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp