IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 30TH AUGUST 2010 / 8TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 25266 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M.KUNUNNI, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.APPU GUPTHAN, "BLIND HUT", MARIYATHURUTHU P.O. AIYMANAM, KOTTAYAM-27. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY (ROADS) DIVISION, MUVATTUPUZHA. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT(ROADS DIVISION), KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW FOR R2 SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU FOR R2 SRI.P.B.PREMARAJAN FOR R2 SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 25266 OF 2010 (G) ===================== Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he is a blind person. According to the petitioner, respondents themselves have allotted a bunk shop in front of the District Hospital, Kottayam in the year 1981. It is stated that, on that basis, he was conducting business and earning a livelihood. While so, his Bunk was removed and he was evicted from the site for road widening. It is stated that representations were made to the 1st respondent, which resulted in a meeting convened where the Secretary of the Municipality was also present. It is stated that in Ext.P10, it was unanimously decided that the Municipality will discuss the issue of rehabilitating the petitioner in the next meeting itself and attempts will be made to redress his grievance. 2. In this writ petition, what the petitioner complains is that since Ext.P10, there has not been any progress in the matter, and therefore, a direction to the Municipality is sought, for the implementation of Ext.P10. WPC No. 25266/10 :2 : 3. I heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 3 and 4 and the standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 4. So long as Ext.P10 remains, to which the Municipality is also a party, the issue of rehabilitation of the petitioner is a matter which the Municipality should try to redress. As at present, there is nothing to indicate that the Municipality has done anything in pursuance to Ext.P10. 5. Therefore, I direct the 2nd respondent to place the issue of rehabilitation of the petitioner before the next Municipal Council and deliberate on the issue and attempt to redress the grievance of the petitioner. Decision as above shall be taken at any rate within 6 weeks. Although the counsel for the petitioner sought a direction to the 1st respondent also for his rehabilitation, having regard to the fact that the Municipality is yet to take a decision, that prayer sought at this stage is premature. Therefore, with the aforesaid direction the writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp