IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15169 of 2009(M) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- K.G.JAMES, S/O.K.J.GEORGE, KARIPURAM HOUSE, KESTON ROAD,KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.S.SREEKUMAR MR.P.MARTIN JOSE MR.P.PRIJITH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. VENPALAVATTAM SREE BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE, VENPALAVATTAM, ANAYARA P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE TEMPLE COMMITTEE, CHANDRAHASAN. 2. CHANDRAHASAN,PRESIDENT, TEMPLE COMMITTEE, VENPALAVATTOM SREE BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE, RESIDING AT VALIAVILAKATHU VEEDU, VENPALAVATTAM, ANAYARA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SHANGHUMUGHOM,TRIVANDRUM. R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.SREEKRISHNA R3 BY ADV. MR.P.K.MANOJ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.15169 of 2009-M = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.Notice to respondents 1 and 2 dispensed with preserving their right to move for review of this judgment, if aggrieved. Learned standing counsel appears for the third respondent and the learned Government Pleader appears for the fourth respondent. 2.The petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 appear to be having certain disputes over an item of land. The petitioner asserts in the writ petition that the property belongs to him. If I were to peruse Ext.P3 issued by the Village Officer, it discloses that there is a boundary dispute between the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a civil suit. It is, WP(C)15169/09 -: 2 :- therefore, obvious that there is a dispute between the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 in relation to an item of land. That is a matter to be sorted out before the civil court. The third respondent is shown to have issued Ext.P2 stop memo to respondents 1 and 2. While the petitioner states that he had made a complaint to the Corporation, Ext.P2 shows that the stop memo is issued on the ground that the builders, namely, respondents 1 and 2, have not produced the no objection certificate from the City Police Commissioner. It is not for this Court to assume that the petitioner has a lawful grievance to be ventilated through the writ court, particularly when rights inter partis cannot be tied down to decisions except in terms of the law and merely on stop memos issued in the form of Ext.P2 by the Corporation authorities and Ext.P3 by the Village Officer. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is ordered directing the third respondent to WP(C)15169/09 -: 3 :- conclude the action taken on Ext.P2 after hearing the petitioner also within a period of 45 days from today. All other issues are left open. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the matter. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/030609