IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3993 of 2010(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.VARGHESE @ KUNJUMON, AGED 65, S/O.IPYE IDIKULA, THURUTHIMEL VEEDU, NEDUVARAMCODE.P.O, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHENGANNUR TALUK LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHENGANNUR. 2. SHRI.ASHOK KUMAR, S/O.RAMAKRISHNA KARANAVAR, KOYICKAL PADAPARETH VEEDU, THURITHIMEL, CHERIAYANADU VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR. 3. CHERIAYANADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHERIAYANADU. 4. SHRI.V.K.VASUDEVAN, PRESIDENT, CHERIAYANADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, RESIDING AT VARIKADU HOUSE, THURUTHUMMEL, NEDUVANADU.P.O, ALAPPUZHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.3993 of 2010 (Y) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P5 order is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Although, the learned counsel for the petitioner accepts that Ext.P5 order reflects correct position, both factually and legally, he says that the Taluk Legal Services Authority should not have ordered what is stated in Ext.P5. 3. Admittedly, the Panchayat was not a party to Ext.P3 judgment rendered by the Civil Court in the suit filed by the petitioner against the 2nd respondent. If that be so, the petitioner can have no quarrel with what is stated in Ext.P5 that the judgment does not bind on the Panchayat. Proceeding further, all that the Taluk Legal Service Authority stated is that it is for the Panchayat to take appropriate legal action in the matter. This also is totally innocuous and harmless. In view of the above, I see absolutely no justification to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg