IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1230 of 2010(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. CAPT.JACOB THOMAS, S/O.JACOB JOHN, MERCHANT NAVY CAPTAIN, 84, CHAKOLAS HOMESTEAD, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM. 2. V.V.JOSEPH, S/O.VARGHESE, VADAKKUMCHERRY HOUSE, SREEMOOLANAGARAM, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.TOM K.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KANJOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANJOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. UMMACHAN, S/O.GEORGE, HOUSE NO.84, SURABHI NAGAR, KAKKANAD KARA, THRIKKAKARA VILLAGE, KANAYANOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI. MS.K.R.DEEPA, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.1230 of 2010 (C) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 14th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners state that the access to their property is through a road belonging to the 1st respondent Panchayat. According to them, the 2nd respondent encroached into the said road and made certain constructions causing obstruction to vehicular traffic. On account of this, the petitioners complained to the authorities resulting in Exts.P6 & P7 orders issued by respondents 3 & 1 respectively, for the removal of the aforesaid obstructions. 2. According to the petitioners, faced with Exts.P6 & P7 orders, in order to prevent its implementation, the 2nd respondent filed O.S.No.42/2007 before the Munsiff Court, Aluva, in which an order of injunction was passed, which was later vacated by the Civil Court by Ext.P8 order. Although, there is no order preventing implementation of Exts.P6 & P7, it is complained that the said orders are not implemented. Therefore, complaining of the same, the petitioners again moved Ext.P9 before the 1st respondent and even on the representation, no action is taken. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition is filed. WP(C) No.1230/2010 -2- 3. If as stated by the petitioners, Exts.P6 & P7 orders are still in force, there is no reason why the same shall not be implemented. In any case, since these orders have been issued by respondents 3 & 1 respectively, it is up to the authorities concerned to take action for its implementation. 4. As according to the petitioners, Ext.P9 is still pending consideration of the 1st respondent, I direct the 1st respondent to take note of Ext.P9 and issue notice to the petitioners and 2nd respondent and take appropriate action in this matter. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 5. It is made clear that the observations made in the judgment shall not be taken as a binding direction by the 1st respondent and it is entirely for the 1st respondent to take action in this matter untrammelled by the directions in the judgment. The petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 1st respondent for compliance. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg