IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 36957 of 2003(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- POIKAYIL BROTHERERN SABHA, KIZHAKKE BHAGAM MURI, PUNNALA VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PASTOR DR.P.V.ALEXANDER, POKKAYIL VEEDU, KIZAKKE BHAGAM MURI, PATHANAPURAM VILLAGE TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT BY ADV. DR.P.S.KRISHNA PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. K. SASIDHARAN, KOLLALATHADATHIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUM BHAGAM MURI, PUNNALA VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. K. SREEDHARAN, -DO- -DO- R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.RAMESH R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOSY ANTONY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.36957 OF 2003 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT This Writ Petition has been filed mainly with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P1 representation in accordance with law with notice to the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 and after affording them an opportunity of being heard. Evidently, Ext.P1 representation was submitted on 4.4.2003 carrying the request to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 in relation to a cemetery. However, there is no representation for the petitioner as also for respondents 2 and 3 when the matter is taken up for consideration. There is nothing on record which would suggest that the dispute raised as per Ext.P1 is still subsisting. In view of the said position, this Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority in case any further grievance subsists in the matter. With the said liberty, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Needless to say that in case, any such petition is preferred by the petitioner, the competent authority shall consider the same expeditiously, with notice to the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.36957/2003 2 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.36957/2003 3