Thomas Varghese vs Revenue Divisional Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 19262 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
    TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 23RD BHADRA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 17319 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

           THOMAS VARGHESE
           AGED 65 YEARS
           S/O. VARGHESE, PULICKAL COTTAGE, VENMONY P.O.,
           CHENGANNUR TALUK, DISTRICT ALAPPUZHA, PIN-689 509

           BY ADVS.
           K.S.SANTHI
           ALEXY AUGUSTINE
           LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
           GEORGE A.CHERIAN



RESPONDENTS:

    1      REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
           OFFICE OF REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHENGANNUR, PIN-
           689 121

 ADDL.R2   TRIKKANNAPURAM MAHAVISHNU TEMPLE
           VENMANI P.O, CHENGANNUR 689509
           REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HARI,
           CHETTEZHATHU HOUSE, VENMANI P O, PIN-689509

           IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 14.09.2021 IN I.A NO.1/21
           BY ADV.PRINCY XAVIER, GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 17319 OF 2021

                                         2




                          W.P.(C) No.17319 of 2021
                   -----------------------------------------------
                                JUDGMENT

The grievance voiced by the petitioner in the writ petition

concerns the alleged obstruction caused to him by the second

respondent in the matter of enjoying a Panchayat road. Ext.P1 is the

complaint preferred by the petitioner before the first respondent in this

regard. It is stated by the petitioner that Ext.P1 has been preferred by

the petitioner invoking Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It

is alleged by the petitioner that the first respondent is not taking

appropriate action on Ext.P1 complaint. The petitioner, therefore, seeks

appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the

learned Government Pleader.

3. In the nature of the order I propose to pass in this

matter, no notice need be issued to the second respondent.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

especially the fact that Ext.P1 is a statutory application and the

grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent is causing

obstruction to the Panchayat road, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the

writ petition directing the first respondent to dispose of Ext.P1 application WP(C) NO. 17319 OF 2021

in accordance with law with notice to the second respondent, as

expeditiously as possible. Ordered accordingly. This shall be done within

three months.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE Mn WP(C) NO. 17319 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17319/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 16.4.21

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 12.4.21 TO THE VENMONY GRAMA PANCHAYATH BY THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DATED 14.4.21

Exhibit P3A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 16.4.21

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 7.7.2021 TO THE RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER