IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 32699 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ SHEELA RAVINDRAN, D/O.CHANDRAN, AGED 38 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, PUTHANPURA HOUSE, KOYYODE, CHEMBILODE, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. P.P.PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O.CHERIYAMBU, AGED 64 YEARS, NIYATHI, BEHIND POTHERI HOUSE, MUNDAYAT, KANNUR. 2. THE CHEMBILODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, CHEMBILODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, P.O.MOVVANCHERRY, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL FOR R1 SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN FOR R1 SRI.I.V.PRAMOD FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.32699/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 29.1.2008 IN IA NO.2071 OF 2007 IN FDIA NO.1502/07 IN OS NO.258 OF 1992 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, THALASSERY. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT 18.2.2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE/ORDER DT 7.3.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT. 21.4.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 10.7.08 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT 14.7.08 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 32699 OF 2008 (P) ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The complaint of the petitioner is regarding the alleged inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent on Ex.P2 complaint made by her. According to the petitioner, after receipt of Ext.P2, 2nd respondent issued notice to the 1st respondent, who filed Ext.P4 reply. It is stated that thereafter there has not been any further progress in the matter, and therefore, the writ petition is filed. 2. Standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent confirms the pendency of the proceedings. 3. If that be the position, there is no reason why the 2nd respondent should not hear the parties and consider the objections and pass orders on Ext.P2. This the 2nd respondent shall do, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp