IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31103 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUKUMARAN NAIR,S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 48,PARAMATTU HOUSE,VADACODE PO,KANGARAPADY, COCHIN 682 021. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.ELDHO RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,KALAMASSERY, PIN CODE 6820 2. THANKAMANI AMMA, D/O.KRISHNAN NAIR,PARAMATTU HOUSE(ASHA NIVAS) VADACODE PO,KANGARAPADY,COCHIN, PIN CODE 682 021. R1 – BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP(C).No. 31103 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of October, 2010 Judgment The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 who is his neighbour is constructing a building in her property without obtaining any permit or licence from respondent No.1 Municipality. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 complaint lodged by him in this regard has not been duly considered by the Municipality so far, though it has been pending since August 11, 2010. Ext.P2 receipt indicates that the Municipality has received some communication from the petitioner. Petitioner contends that Ext.P2 was issued by the Municipality on receipt of Ext.P1 complaint. 2. It appears that petitioner and respondent No.2 are involved in a civil litigation emanating from a property dispute. Reference has been made to the above aspect only to indicate that the personal relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.2 is none too cordial, to say the least. Anyhow, the limited prayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other WPC.31103/2010. : 2 : appropriate writ or direction to respondent No.1 to consider and take a decision on Ext.P1. I do not find any reason why respondent No.1 shall not consider and take a decision on the complaint, if any, received from the petitioner, alleging unauthorised/illegal construction being carried out by respondent No.2. 3. Learned standing counsel for respondent No.1 submits that if Ext.P1 has been filed , that will be looked into and an appropriate decision will be taken thereon with due intimation to the petitioner. The above submission is recorded and the writ petition is closed. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.