IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 12487 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.K.MOHAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O NARAYANAN, PARACKAL HOUSE, METHALA P.O, KURUPPAMPADY(VIA) ERNAKULAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.SUDHEESH.A. SMT.C.V.BINDU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, ASAMANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ASAMANNOOR P.O, KURUPPAMPADY (VIA), ERNAKULAM DT. PIN 683549. 2. THE ASAMANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ASAMANNOOR P.O, KURUPPAMPADY (VIA), ERNAKULAM DT. PIN 683549. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM. 4. MEDICAL OFFICER, P.H.C, ASAMANNOOR, ERNAKULAM. 5. GANESHAN, S/O VELAYUDHAN, MADATHIL HOUSE, METHALA P.O. KURUPPAMPADY (VIA), ERNAKULAM DT. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 12487 OF 2010 (I) ===================== Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T The issue in the writ petition is regarding the location of a cattle shed and a pit. Complaints were made by the petitioner, and after inspection, the Secretary of the Panchayat issued Ext.P6 order stating that the pit has been removed and remedial action has been taken by the 5th respondent. Petitioner submits that what is stated in Ext.P6 are factually incorrect, and therefore submitted Ext.P7 representation. In this writ petition, what he seeks is to quash Ext.P6 and to take appropriate action for shifting not only the pit but even the cattle shed. 2. While according to the petitioner, the pollution on account of the cattle shed and pit continues, according to the Secretary of the Panchayat, the pit has been removed and remedial action in so far as the cattle shed has been taken by the 5th respondent, It is the correctness of this stand taken by the Secretary that is called in question by the petitioner. 3. In my view, the issues raised by the petitioner are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be resolved in a WPC No. 12487/10 :2 : proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the remedy of the petitioner, if at all, is to seek appellate remedies against Ext.P6 and not in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp