Kerala High Court
P.T.Samuelkutty vs Pathanamthitta Municipality on 30 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 11979 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
P.T.SAMUELKUTTY
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.LATE P.G.THOMAS, 'PUTHUKULATHU TITTY VILLA', 12/22
KAIRALIPURAM, MUNDUKOTTAKAL P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA 689 649
BY ADVS.
JAGAN ABRAHAM M.GEORGE
JAISON ANTONY
RESPONDENTS:
1 PATHANAMTHITTA MUNICIPALITY
PATHANAMTHITTA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA 689 645, REP. BY ITS
SECRETARY.
2 PRINU T MATHEW
AGED AROUND 48 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, THUNDIYIL HOUSE,
KAIRALIPURAM MUNDUKOTTACKAL P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA 689 649
BY ADV JAMES ABRAHAM (VILAYAKATTU), SC, PATHANAMTHITTA
MUNICIPALITY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN, J.
==================
W. P. (C) No.11979 of 2021
==================
Dated this the 30th day of July, 2021
JUDGMENT
The petitioner and the second respondent are
neighbours. Alleging that certain trees standing in
the property of the second respondent poses threat
since there are overhanging branches or that the
trees are in a slanting position towards the
property of the petitioner, complaints have been
filed by him before the first respondent
Municipality. Copies of the complaints have been
produced as Ext.P2 series in this writ petition.
The complaints are of the years 2016 and 2019.
According to the petitioner, the grievance yet
remains un-redressed.
2. The first respondent Municipality has filed
a statement through its Standing Counsel to the
effect that, proceedings have been initiated in
terms of Sections 412 and 428 of the Municipalities
Act and that a notice has been issued to the second
respondent.
W. P. (C) No.11979 of 2021
3. It would be sufficient if the proceedings so
initiated are taken to a logical conclusion after
hearing the petitioner and the second respondent.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
directing the first respondent to have the
proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P2 series
complaints carried to a logical conclusion without
further delay. The proceedings shall be completed
within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say
that the petitioner and the second respondent shall
be put on notice and given an opportunity of
hearing.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. to Judge
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11979/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 PHOTOGRAPH
Exhibit P1(A) PHOTOGRAPH
Exhibit P1(B) PHOTOGRAPH
Exhibit P1(C) PHOTOGRAPH
Exhibit P2 COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26.2.2015.
Exhibit P2(A) COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10.4.2016
Exhibit P2(B) COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31.8.2016
Exhibit P2(C) COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 8.4.2019
Exhibit P3 LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
INFORMATION UNDER 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
30.1.17.
Exhibit P3A LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
INFORMATION UNDER 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
15.2.17.
Exhibit P3(B) REPLY LETTER SENT BY THE INFORMATION OFFICER
DATED 14.3.2017.
-----
