IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 36909 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BEENA MATHAI, AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.MATHAI, KILIYANKUNNATH HOUSE, INDIRA NAGAR HOUSING COLONY, SULTHAN BATHERY, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER-MATHAI P.P., PALIYATHU MOLAYIL HOUSE, POOMALA P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SULTHAN BATHERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYATH OFFICE, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD. 2. SECRETARY, SULTHAN BATHERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PANCHAYATH OFFICE, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD. 3. P.J.MATHEW, PUTHUKAYIL HOUSE, POOMALA P.O., MANICHIRA, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD 673 592. ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 APPEARING ALONG WITH ADV. SRI. K.M. SATHYANATHA MENON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 36909/2008. ------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT. EXT.P2 COPY OF APPROVED PLAN. EXT.P3 NOTICE DT. 23-1-2008. EXT.P4 REQUEST DT. 25-3-2008. EXT.P5 COMPLETION CERTIFICATE. EXT.P6 COMMUNICATION DT. 15-7-2008. EXT.P7 COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE LOK AYUKTA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------- EXT.R3(a) TRUE COPY OF PLAN OF THE BUILDING. EXT.R3(b) COMMISSION REPORT DT. 24-11-2008. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 36909 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 13th February, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has constructed a building after obtaining permit for such construction. After completion of the construction, the petitioner has filed Ext. P4 petition for numbering of the building. The petitioner's grievance is that the same is not being considered by the 2nd respondent-Secretary of the Panchayat on the ground that the 3rd respondent has filed a complaint before the Lok Ayuktha. According to the petitioner, there is no interim orders in the complaint filed before the Lok Ayuktha and that the Lok Ayuktha does not have jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint also. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent disputing the contentions of the petitioner. 3. I have heard the standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 also. 4. I am not inclined to go into the contentions of the parties on merits. I am of opinion that the 2nd respondent has a duty to consider and pass orders on Ext. P4 in accordance with law. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext. P4 petition submitted by the petitioner after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/