IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6817 of 2010(B)
1. K.V.JOSEPH I.P.S, (RETD) AGED 66 YEARS
... Petitioner
2. ALPHONSA VARKEY,AGED 54 YEARS
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY
3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
4. C.J.MICHEEAL, HOUSE NO.170-A
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :03/03/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.6817 of 2010 (B)
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 3rd day of March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners’ grievance is that the 4th respondent is making
certain constructions without obtaining permit from the 2nd
respondent Corporation. If it is so, the remedy available to the
petitioners is to move the Civil Court rather than adopting the
indirect method of filing a complaint to the Corporation and filing a
writ petition praying to direct that action be taken on the complaint.
It is seen that the petitioners have made an allegation of this
nature in Ext.P2 complaint. Ext.P2 complaint is filed only on
27/02/2010, and this writ petition has been filed on 02/03/2010.
The question of finding fault with the respondent for their inaction
on the complaint can arise only if reasonable time has expired, after
the receipt of the complaint. In this case, immediately after filing
the complaint, the petitioner has rushed to this Court and has filed
this writ petition. For this reason also, I am not inclined to issue any
direction for the consideration of the representation either.
The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg