IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37941 of 2010(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.K.STALIN,AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.KANNU PILLAI, POOMALIL HOUSE, MOOTHAKUNNAM P.O, NORTH PARAVOOR. BY ADVS. SRI.N.G.SUNIL, SMT.P.JAYA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,PWD ROAD SUB DIVISION, CIVIL STATION,KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 682 020. 2. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS SUB DIVISION, NORTH PARAVOOR – 680 662. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NH ROADS AND BRIDGES,KODUNGALLOOR – 680 664. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MOOTHAKUNNAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 680 665. 5. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,GANDHI NAGAR, KADAVANTHARA,KOCHI-20. 6. RAJU,AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, KALAKKASERRY HOUSE, VAVAKKAD, MOOTHAKUNNAM P.O – 680 665. 7. ATHO FRANCIS,AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O.ATHO,KIZHAKKEVEETTIL HOUSE, MADAPLATHURUTHU, MOOTHAKUNNAM P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1, R2 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN, R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.37941 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 19th January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner complains that respondents 6 and 7 are conducting a fish market in front of the petitioner's property and thus blocking the petitioner's passage to the national highway link road. It is stated that despite having made Exts P6 to P9 complaints before respondents 1 to 5, the aforesaid respondents are remaining totally inactive on the complaints also. It is with this allegation, the writ petition is filed. 2. Although the case was adjourned with a direction to the learned standing counsel for National Highway authorities to obtain instructions in the matter, instructions are not forthcoming and therefore I do not think it necessary to adjourn the case. Taking note of the allegations levelled by the petitioners and as according to the petitioner, the complaints made before the respondents are remaining unattended, it is directed that the 3rd respondent to whom Exts.P8 and P9 are addressed, shall take note of those complaints, enquire into the W.P (C) No.37941 of 2010 2 allegations , issue notice to respondents 6 and 7 and take appropriate action to redress the grievance of the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the complaints filed by the petitioner. Third respondent shall enquire into the matter and take a decision, in accordance with law. This the 3rd respondent shall do, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge W.P (C) No.37941 of 2010 3