Gopalakrishnan Nair vs The Executive Engineer on 12 February, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 3173 of 2009(C)


1. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. DEEPA RUDREN,

                        Vs



1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :12/02/2009

 O R D E R
                          ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                         ==============
                     W.P.(C) NO. 3173 OF 2009 (C)
                    ====================

              Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009

                              J U D G M E N T

This is the third writ petition that the petitioners are filing in relation

to a compound wall to the property that they have constructed.

2. It is stated that soon after the construction was completed, a

notice was issued calling upon them to demolish the compound wall.

Thereupon, the writ petition was filed by them as WP(C) No.8057/04 and

that writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment directing that the

property in question be measured and demarcated before anything further

is done. Again notice was issued for demolition and that was called in

question in WP(C) No.30365/04 resulting in Ext.P2 judgment. In that

judgment, this Court held that if the petitioners still have any grievance,

representation can be made to the authorities, in which case, the same will

be examined. Petitioners submit that without complying with the direction

in Ext.P1, without conducting any survey or demarcation, the respondents

again issued Exts.P3 and P4 notices. It is stated that again Ext.P5

representation was filed taking advantage of the direction contained in

Ext.P2 judgment and that also remains unattended.

WPC 3173/09

:2 :

3. As already noticed, the main contention raised by the counsel

for the petitioners is that survey was not conducted as directed, and that

any survey if at all conducted, was without notice to them.

4. Learned Government Pleader on the other hand has

instructions in the matter and he submits that the survey was conducted

and that the same was conducted in the presence of the petitioners

themselves. It is also informed that Ext.P5 has been received and that a

hearing was scheduled on 3/2/2009, but however, the same has been

deferred in view of the pendency of this writ petition.

5. Irrespective of whatever that has happened, fact remains that

in Ext.P2 judgment, this Court gave liberty to the petitioners to ventilate

their grievances before the authorities concerned by filing a

representation. This the petitioners have availed of by filing Ext.P5. As

informed by the learned Government Pleader, the receipt of Ext.P5 has

been acknowledged and a hearing is also scheduled.

6. In view of this, I direct that the respondents shall consider

Ext.P5, with notice to the petitioners and take a decision thereon. This

shall be done, as expeditiously as possible.

WPC 3173/09

:3 :

7. It is also directed that in the meanwhile, further proceedings

pursuant to Exts.P3 and P4 will be kept in abeyance.

8. Petitioners may produce a copy of this judgment before the

respondents for compliance.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp