High Court of KeralaWP(C)/8666/2015disposed of

P.P. George v. State Of Kerala

2015-03-19Honourable Mr.Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/28TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 8666 of 2015 (G) --------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------- P.P. GEORGE, AGED 73 YEARS, S/O. LATE POULOSE, POTTOKKARAN HOUSE, OPPOSITE ST. GEORGE HIGH SCHOOL, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM THALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.RAJESH SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN RESPONDENT(S):

-------------------------

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVT., KERALA PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROAD DIVISION, NEAR RAMANELAYAM, THRISSUR, PIN-680022.

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

WP(C).No. 8666 of 2015 (G) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1:

TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.2.2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

- NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE mbr/

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

.............................................................................. W.P.(C)No.8666 OF 2015 ......................................................................... Dated this the 19th March, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:

"i) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P1 representation at the earliest in the interest of justice.

ii) any other reliefs that this Honourable Court may deem fit. "

The petitioner is aggrieved of a bunk shop erected unauthorisedly on the side of a public road near his residence, since it is causing much difficulties to the peaceful living of the residents of the locality. Projecting their grievance though Ext.P1 representation has been preferred before the second respondent/Executive Engineer, PWD Roads Division, but the same is still to be acted upon. Hence the writ petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will be satisfied, if a direction is given to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P1 within a reasonable time.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

W.P.(C)No.8666 OF 2015

4. Considering the limited nature of relief sought for, this Court does not find it necessary to adjudicate the issue on merits. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the second respondent/Executive Engineer, PWD Roads Division to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P1 after hearing both the sides, at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the second respondent for further steps. The writ petition is disposed of.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk