IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 1ST NOVEMBER 2010 / 10TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33115 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JOHN JACOB, S/O.JACOB, VENGASSERY HOUSE, ALAPARA, KANNARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJI MATHEW SRI.DENU JOSEPH SRI.JUFIN GEORGE VALOORAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. PANACHERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PATTIKKAD P.O THRISSUR-680652, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, POOMKUNNAM P.O., THRISSUR-680002. 3. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 4. SHAJI PADAYATTIL, ALEENA ENGINEERING, WORKS, ALAPARA, KANNARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680652. B SRI. M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 33115 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who is residing adjacent to the building in which a business is being run by the fourth respondent, within the local limits of Panachery Grama Panchayat, has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “(a) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to ensure that there will be no further nuisance caused by the illegal functioning of the 4th respondent. (b) To direct the 1st respondent to forthwith take action against the illegal functioning of the workshop run by the 4th respondent without license under Section 232 & 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. (c) To direct the 1st respondent to take action against the illegal construction made by the 4th respondent in the government owned puramboke property where the workshop is being run in violation of various provisions of Section 235(f) & 235(L)(1)(v). (d) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the 2nd respondent to inspect & report the air & water pollution using modern scientific methods caused in the petitioner's property and area surrounding due to the illegal activities of the workshop being run by the 4h respondent after giving notice to the petitioner, other respondents and the other people residing in the locality.” 2. The pleadings disclose that aggrieved by the business being run by the fourth respondent, the petitioner has filed O.S. No. 1273 of 2010 in the Court of the Munsiff, Thrissur wherein the local WPC No.33115/2010 2 authority is also a party. The petitioner's allegation therein was that the fourth respondent is running the business in poramboke land. If besides the relief sought in Ext.P11 plaint, the petitioner has got any additional grounds justifying the grant of reliefs other than the relief sought in the plaint, I am of the opinion that he should amend the plaint and seek further reliefs instead of approaching this Court by way of filing a writ petition. A Full Bench of this Court has in Reena v. Geena (2010 (2) KLT 155 (FB) held that a litigant should not be allowed to proceed with parallel remedies, one in the civil court and other in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore on that short ground, I decline jurisdiction and dismiss the writ petition. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.33115/2010 3 WPC No.33115/2010 4