IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 35261 of 2007(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.K. SATHIAPALAN, "KARUVANS", CHERIYA ARUMBAYIL HOUSE, ULLIYERI P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ULLIYERI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. BALAN NAMBIAR, CHERIYA ARUMBAYIL HOUSE, ULLIYERI P.O.,KOYILANDY. 3. SULOCHANA, W/O.BALAN NAMBIAR, CHERIYA ARUMBAYIL HOUSE, ULLIYERI P.O.,KOYILANDY. 4. BABU, CHERIYA ARUMBAYIL HOUSE, ULLIYERI P.O.,KOYILANDY. 5. ANITHA, D/O. BABU, CHERIYA ARUMBAYIL HOUSE, ULLIYERI P.O.,KOYILANDY. 6. GEETHA, W/O. KUTTIKRISHNAN, CHERIYA ARUMBAYIL HOUSE, ULLIYERI P.O.,KOYILANDY. BY ADV. SRI.K.BABU THOMAS (R1) BY SRI.SANTHARAM.P. (R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 35261 of 2007 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March , 2008 JUDGMENT The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that the second respondent obstructed the free flow of waste water through a public drain passing through the middle of the pathway of the Panchayat, and though the Panchayat issued Ext.P3 notice to the second respondent acting upon the complaint submitted by the petitioner, the Panchayat is not finalising the proceedings initiated as per Ext.P3. 2. The Panchayat has filed a detailed counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that it is the petitioner who created nuisance by breaking the waste water pipe line leading from his residential building and premises to the pathway. After creating nuisance by breaking open the waste water pipe line and letting out waste and filthy water from his residential building and WPC No.35261/2007 2 premises into the pathway, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for creating the impression that it is respondents 2 to 6 who have caused nuisance. 3. Having regard to the submissions addressed and the materials placed on record, particularly Ext.R1(c), I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for favourable exercise of discretionary jurisdiction of this court for the issuance of a direction to the Panchayat to finalise the proceedings initiated against the second respondent under Ext.P3. It is seen from the counter affidavit of the Panchayat and the submissions of the learned counsel for the Panchayat that those proceedings have been finalized. In fact, in the enquiry, which was conducted by the Panchayat pursuant to Ext.P3, it was revealed that it was not the second respondent, who caused nuisance but it was the petitioner himself who caused nuisance and hence Ext.R1(c) was issued. It appears that Ext.R1(c) proceedings initiated against the petitioner has not been finalized by the Panchayat. The Panchayat is directed to finalise the proceedings initiated as per Ext.R1(c) after giving hearing opportunity to the petitioner and WPC No.35261/2007 3 respondents 2 and 3. The relief sought for is declined. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. dpk