IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7821 of 2010(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHAJI GEORGE,AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.LATE GEORGE,OTTATHENGIL HOUSE,ANNAPRAMBAL NORTH, THALAVADY,ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.G.SURESH SRI.OOMMEN M. MATHEW SMT.K.VIDYA SRI.M.R.VIBIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE EDATHUA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,EDATHUA.P.O,ALAP PUZHA. 2. THOMAS THOMAS,KULANGARA HOUSE, ANNAPRAMBAL NORTH,THALAVADY,ALAPPUZHA. 3. KUNJAMMA @ KUNJUNJAMMA,W/O.THOMAS THOMAS KULANGARA HOUSE,ANNAPRAMBAL NORTH,THALAVADY.P.O., ALAPPUZHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.7821 of 2010 (C) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 10th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Allegation of the petitioner is that respondents 2 & 3 have altered an existing building without obtaining permit from the 1st respondent. The petitioner submits that he filed Ext.P7 complaint before the 1st respondent and that the same is pending. It is complaining of inaction on the part of the Panchayat on Ext.P7 complaint, that this writ petition has been filed. 2. However, it is noticed that O.S.No.570/2009 filed by the petitioner against respondents 2 & 3 is pending before the Munsiff Court, Alappuzha, where according to the petitioner, the Court has passed an order directing respondents 2 & 3 to maintain status quo in so far as the building is concerned. The petitioner submits that the said order is also in force and that the building has been altered in violation of the said order. 3. If as stated by the petitioner, there is an order of status quo passed by the Civil Court, which is still in force, and if any party WP(C) No.7821/2010 -2- to the case has violated the said order, the remedy of the petitioner is to move that Court itself. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already filed three prosecution petitions against respondents 2 & 3 on the allegation that they have violated the interim orders passed by the Civil Court, and that therefore, this Court should intervene in the matter. But however, that is no reason to bye-pass the statutory remedy available to the petitioner. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing that if according to the petitioner, respondents 2 & 3 have violated any order passed by the Civil Court, it will be open to the petitioner to move the Civil Court itself, in which event, I have no reason to think that the Civil Court will not take appropriate action in the matter. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg