IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 8351 of 2011(T) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- JAYAN ASARI, S/O.NARAYANANASARI, RESIDING AT `THIRUVONAM', STUDIO ROAD, ESTATE.P.O, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 019. BY SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE, SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON, SRI.JIBU P THOMAS, SRI.P.S.APPU, SRI.A.R.NIMOD, SRI.C.A.ANOOP, SRI.MATHEWS RAJU. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 025. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3. VENGANOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VENGANOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 523. 4. AJAYAN, RESIDING AT KAYALKKARA VEEDU, KATTUKULAM, NELLIVILA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 523. 5. T. CHERIAN, RESIDING AT KAVUVILA VEEDU, VENNIYOOR, NELLIVILA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 523. R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.8351 of 2011 ---------------------------- Dated 17th March, 2011 JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P6 order of the first respondent and also with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to verify the credentials of the fifth respondent complainant before proceeding with Ext.P4 complaint. The further prayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 not to interfere with the construction work undertaken by the petitioner based on a valid permit and approved building plan. 2. A perusal of Ext.P6 would reveal that there is no scope for any interference with the same. No order which is adverse to the petitioner is passed as per Ext.P6 by the first respondent. In Ext.P6, taking note of the cancellation of the permit issued to the fifth respondent viz., the petitioner herein, the District Collector, the second respondent was directed to ensure that no unauthorized constructions are effected on the coastal area of Vellayani Kayal and a report was ordered to be placed on record on the said aspect. I do not find anything which is adverse to the petitioner in the said order that calls for consideration by this Court. WP(C).No.8351/2011 2 3. With respect to the second prayer of the petitioner i.e., for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to verify the credentials of the fifth respondent complainant before proceeding with Ext.P4 complaint, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to such a relief. If the petitioner is disputing the allegations made in the complaint, it is for the petitioner to raise such contentions before the first respondent. In this context, it is to be noted that the petitioner is also made a party in the said proceedings before the first respondent. In fact, he is the fifth respondent therein. The last prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 not to interfere with the construction work undertaken by the petitioner on the basis of a valid building permit and approved building plan. I am of the view that the petitioner is also not entitled to get such a relief in the light of Ext.P5. In Ext.P5 it has been specifically stated that already directions have been issued to cancel the permit issued to the petitioner. Despite the same, the petitioner has not challenged Ext.P5 or any other action taken for the purpose of cancelling the permit already granted to him. In the said circumstances, there is no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed. However, it will be open to the petitioner to resort to the statutory WP(C).No.8351/2011 3 remedies in case of cancellation of permit issued to him, subject to the provisions of law. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // true copy // P.S. to Judge