IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2009 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30416 of 2009(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. SINDHU.K, KOCHU VEETTIL VADAKKETHIL, CHERUSSERY BHAGAM, PANMANA VILLAGE, CHAVARA.P.O, KOLLAM. 2. JAMES, JENSI BHAVAN, CHERUSSERY BHAGAM, PANMANA VILLAGE, CHAVARA.P.O, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.JOHN BRITTO MR.C.A.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. PANMANA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, EDAPPALLY KOTTA.P.O, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVARA POLICE STATION, CHAVARA, KOLLAM. 4. RAVINDRAN, THEJUS, VENMINAMTHARA, THENGIRATTAYIL, MEKKAD, CHAVARA.P.O, KOLLAM. R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V. MANU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.30416 of 2009-V = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of October, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.Notice to respondents 1 and 4 dispensed with preserving their right to seek re-hearing of this writ petition, if aggrieved by the directions being issued hereunder. Learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 2 and 3. 2.The petitioners' complaint is that the fourth respondent is carrying on certain activities in violation of the directions of the Secretary of the first respondent Grama Panchayat. The said Secretary has sufficient statutory power to ensure obedience of orders issued by that authority. If there is any maladministration, dereliction of duty or any other duty relatable to the working out of the said issue, the WPC30416/09 -: 2 :- petitioner has adequate remedy before the learned Ombudsman for LSGIs. If there is a personal cause of action for instituting a suit of a civil nature, the proceedings pending before the Grama Panchayat will not stand in its way. Either way, I do not find any ground for the writ court to assume that any alleged violation to perform any statutory or public duty, has resulted in any injustice warranting issuance of a writ of mandamus or similar direction. Therefore, the plea in that regard is rejected without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to move the appropriate authority. In so far as the petitioners' complaint before the District Collector is concerned, it is ordered that if Ext.P1 is received and pending, the same shall be taken up, considered and decided upon after hearing the necessary parties and untrammelled by anything stated in this judgment. Let the needful be done within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a WPC30416/09 -: 3 :- copy of this judgment. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/061109