IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 18673 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. THOMSON.J., S/O.JNANABHARANAN, VALIYAVILA PUTHENVEEDU, THALACKONAM, KURITHAMKODU P.O., KULATHUMMEL, KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PONNAMMA SULOCHANA, W/O.THOMSON.J, DO. DO. 3. SULOCHANA SOBHA, D/O.THOMSON.J, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE R.D.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE CHAIR PERSON, STATE WOMEN COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. MEENAKSHI, D/O.PONNAMMA, SIVA NILAYAM, THALACKONAM, KULATHUMMEL, KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN ADV. SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.18673 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 21th August,2009 J U D G M E N T Second petitioner is the wife of the 1st petitioner and 3rd petitioner is their daughter. Fifth respondent is a neighbour of the petitioners, who has property near the petitioners' property. A boundary dispute arose between the petitioners on one hand and 5th respondent on the other hand. A civil suit OS 85/2008 before the Munsiff's Court, Nedumangadu for fixation of boundary and consequential injunction is pending as well. It seems that a criminal case was registered against the petitioners as evidenced by Ext.P3. 2. Fifth respondent, a lady filed a complaint before the Women’s Commission with regard to the same issue. Notice was issued to petitioners. They appeared before the Commission and the writ petition goes on the premise that the complaint at the instance of the 5th respondent is still pending before the Commission. W.P ( C) No.18673 of 2009 2 3. First petitioner thereafter filed a complaint before the Women’s Commission on the same issue and this was not considered on merits as evidenced by Ext.P7 on the ground that the complaint is filed by a woman. Ext.P7 is challenged in the writ petition. Other incidental reliefs have also been prayed for. 4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 4th respondent Women’s Commission, pointing out that Ext.P4 was closed in the year 2008 itself requiring the parties to abide by the orders of the Civil Court. That has not been disclosed in the writ petition. 5. Ext.P5 is any way not maintainable in terms of Sec.17 of the Women’s Commission Act. Heard counsel on both sides. What is to be noted is that Ext.P4 complaint filed by the 5th respondent has already been closed. No further action is contemplated therein. Petitioners, therefore, do not have any further grievance. The stand taken by the Women’s Commission as regards the maintainability of the complaint filed by the 1st petitioner is also correct in view of Section 17 of the W.P ( C) No.18673 of 2009 3 Women’s Commission Act. There is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.18673 of 2009 4 W.P ( C) No.18673 of 2009 5