IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2008 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6049 of 2008(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.MURALEEDHARAN, S/O. KARTHIYAYINI AMMA, AGED 50 YEARS, MULLATH HOUSE, PUTHAMPILLY DESOM, GURUVAYOOR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. GURUVAYOOR MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. MULLATH ROAD COMMITTEE, UNDER THE GURUVAYOOR MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR. 3. GEETHA RAJAN, W/O. RAJAN, ODAT HOUSE, PUTHAMPILLY DESOM, GURUVAYOOR, CHAVAKKAD. BY ADV.SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SC . THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No. 6049 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT I do not propose to go into the correctness of the allegations levelled, the grounds raised or the merits of the contentions of the Municipality, for that matter the other two respondents in the writ petition. Sri.Jaju Babu submits that even though no interim order has been passed regarding the execution of the work of which the third respondent is a beneficiary, the Municipality is not very keen in seeing that the contractor executes the agreement and does the work at the earliest. The issue between the petitioner and the Municipality is a different issue and the pendency of that issue before this court should not stand in the way of the work being executed at the earliest. I find merit in the above submission. 2. Sri.Rajit, counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner will be satisfied if the Municipality is directed to take up Exts.P1 and P2, wherein the petitioner has voiced all his grievances immediately and takes a decision after hearing him also. 3. Sri.K.K.Chandran Pillai, standing counsel for the WPC.No.6049/08 2 Municipality submits that most of the disputes which have been raised by the petitioner will not come within the domain of the Municipalities Act and the powers which are available to the Municipality under that statute. There is some merit in the above submission also. 4. Considering the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, I dispose of the writ petition issuing the following directions and clarifications: It is clarified that this court has not passed any orders restraining the execution of work in respect of which the petitioner has voiced his grievances. The first respondent Municipality will ensure that the contractor does the work at the earliest and complete the work in a time bound manner. There will be a direction to the Municipality to take up Exts.P1 and P2 representations submitted by the petitioner, issue notice to the petitioner and the third respondent and take a correct decision on the representations. The Municipality will comply with this direction also at the earliest and at any rate within one month of receiving a copy of this judgment. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.6049/08 2