IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31435 of 2010(D)
1. P.K.RADHA,
... Petitioner
2. BARATHY SUKUMARAN,
Vs
1. NELLIKUZHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
... Respondent
2. THOMAS RAPHEL,
3. CHERIYAN RAPHEL,AGED 46,AMBALAKKATTU HOU
For Petitioner :SRI.S.RENJITH
For Respondent :SRI.P.FAZIL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :15/11/2010
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.31435 of 2010
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of November, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 are neighbours.
When the second respondent commenced construction of a
residential building, the petitioners filed a representation before
the Secretary of the first respondent Grama Panchayat alleging
that the construction is in violation of the Kerala Municipality
Building Rules, 1999. On receipt of the said complaint, the
Secretary of the first respondent Grama Panchayat conducted a
local inspection and thereafter issued Ext.P1 memo dated
6.9.2010 calling upon the second respondent to forthwith stop the
construction. It appears respondents 2 and 3 did not comply with
the said order. The petitioners thereupon instituted O.S.No.385 of
2010 in the Court of the Munsiff of Muvattupuzha. In that suit,
they filed I.A.No.2521 of 2010 for an interim order of injunction in
terms of the relief of injunction prayed for in the plaint. On that
application the court below passed Ext.P2 order of injunction
restraining the second respondent herein from putting up any
W.P(C).No.31435 of 2010
-:2:-
construction in violation of the building rules until further orders.
It is thereafter that this writ petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs:-
i) issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ,
order or direction to the 1st respondent to take
necessary steps to stop the illegal construction
made by the 2nd and 3rd respondents in the
property of the 2nd respondent.
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ
order to the 1st respondent to immediately
demolish the building constructed by the
respondent No.2 in his property as it is in
violation of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act 1994
and Building Rules.
2. Shorn of details, the main relief sought in the writ
petition is to direct the first respondent Grama Panchayat to stop
the construction made by respondents 2 and 3 and to demolish
the building put up by them. The pleadings disclose that seeking
the very same reliefs the petitioner has already instituted
O.S.No.385 of 2010 in the Court of the Munsiff of Muvattupuzha
and in that suit an ad interim order of injunction has been passed.
An Advocate Commissioner was also appointed in that suit and
that the Commissioner has filed a report and sketch. A Full Bench
of this Court has in Reena v. Geena, 2010 (2) KLT 155 (FB),
W.P(C).No.31435 of 2010
-:3:-
held that a litigant should not be allowed to prosecute parallel
remedies, one in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India and the other in the civil court by way of a suit. In the
light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Full Bench of this
Court I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to
move this Court by filing a writ petition, seeking the reliefs prayed
for in the suit filed by them in the court of competent jurisdiction.
I accordingly decline jurisdiction and dismiss the writ
petition.
P.N.RAVINDRAN,
Judge.
ahg.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
—————————
W.P(C).No.31435 of 2010
—————————-
JUDGMENT
15th November, 2010