IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1054 of 2011(F) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, KURUVITHOTTATHIL HOUSE, PONNAMKAYAM, THIRUVAMBADY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LUIZ GODWIN D'COUTH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE-673 571. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUVAMBADY-673 603. 3. P.SANTHAMMA, W/O.GOPALAN, MANATHANATHU HOUSE, PONNAMKAYAM, THIRUVAMBADY, PONNAMKAYAM P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 603. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 1054 of 2011 F ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The first respondent issued Ext.P5 order requiring the petitioner to cut and remove the branches of the trees which are found to be dangerous to the life and property of the third respondent. It is stated that on the allegation that Ext.P5 was not implemented by the petitioner, the third respondent cut and removed the branches of the trees mentioned in Ext.P5. Soon thereafter, the petitioner submitted Exts.P6 and P7 representations, complaining that in the process, heavy damages were caused to the petitioner. During the pendency of those representations, he has been issued Ext.P8 notice from the office of the second respondent, stating that the petitioner should deposit an amount of `2,350/- towards the expenses incurred by the third respondent for implementing Ext.P5. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition is filed. W.P.(C) No.1054/2011 : 2 : 2. The main concern of the petitioner seems against the demand made by Ext.P8, which, according to the petitioner, is exorbitant and he should not be made for the said amount. If that be the grievance of the petitioner, in my view, the course of the petitioner is to file objection to Ext.P8, in which event, it is for the second respondent to take it up with the first respondent and consider whether the petitioner is to be exempted from the liability. Therefore, I leave it open to the petitioner to file objection to Ext.P8 to the second respondent to be dealt with by the second respondent in the manner as indicated above. 3. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment and writ petition before the second respondent for appropriate action in the matter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks