IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36950 of 2010(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MARIYADAS, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. DANIEL NADAR, DIVYA BHAVAN, MALAPPANAMCODE, VILAPPILSALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN, SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR, SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 121. 3. THE SECRETARY, VILAPPILSALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 573. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VILAPPILSALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 573. R1, R2 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 36950 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 13th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner complains that he with his family are residing on the northern side of a PWD Road starting from Kattakkada to Thiruvananthapuram. It is stated that right in front of his house, a shed was constructed in the public road, creating problems for the peaceful living of the petitioner. That was complained of by him, and thereafter, as there was no action on the complaint, he approached this Court by filing OP No.7631/2001. That OP was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment. It is stated that though the shed was removed, soon thereafter, the shed was constructed on the opposite side of the road. According to the petitioner, with the construction of the shed, problems started again and he made complaints including Ext.P3. There has not been any response to Ext.P3 and it is complaining of the above, the writ petition is filed. 2. According to the petitioner, shed has been constructed encroaching into the public road. The photographs produced by the petitioner prima facie substantiate this contention. If that be the factual position, in my view, it is the duty of respondents 2 WPC No. 36950/10 :2 : and 3 to ensure that any such unauthorised construction is removed. 3. In that view of the matter and also taking note of the pendency of Ext.P3, I direct the 2nd and 3rd respondent to take appropriate action on Ext.P3. This shall be done on the production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp