IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 W.P(C).No. 21511 of 2008(J) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ZEENATH BEEVI, NANCY MANZIL, MADANTHAPACHA, P.C. MUKKU P.O., KALLAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI SRI.S.S.HUSSAIN SRI.P.K.NIJOY RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4. THE SECRETARY, KARAVARAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 5. NISA, THASLIMA MANZIL, MADAPPACHA, P.CC MUKKU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 6. SAJEEM, THASLIMA MANZIL,MADAPPACHA, P.CC MUKKU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 21511 OF 2008 J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of July 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext. P3 order of the 2nd respondent is under challenge. By Ext. P3, it has been held that the construction undertaken by respondents 5 and 6, can go on. A reading of Ext. P2 order of the 2nd respondent shows that taking note of the grievance urged by the petitioner the 2nd respondent had called for a report from the Deputy Director of Panchayats as to whether respondents 5 and 6 were issued any permit and if so, the construction was in compliance with the same. In pursuance to Ext. P3 order, report was received and it is based on the said report that the complaint filed by the petitioner alleging trespass against respondents 5 and 6 was considered. 2. As at present, the admitted case of the petitioner itself shows that the petitioner has not taken any proceedings against the permit obtained by respondents 5 and 6. If that be so, so long as W.P.(C) No. 21511 OF 2008 -2- the construction is also found to be strictly in compliance with the permit obtained, the 2nd respondent cannot be faulted for the view it has taken in Ext. P3. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-