The dispute in this writ petition relates to a pathway which according to the petitioner is a public pathway. The case of the petitioner is that, the 9th respondent has made certain constructions encroaching upon the public pathway. The construction is also alleged to be in violation of the Panchayat Building Rules. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 complaint to the 3rd respondent. According to him no action has been taken thereon. Regarding the encroachment on the public road, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 to the 5th respondent. The respondent has also not taken any action thereon, complains the petitioner.
2. Adv.Sri.C.Y.Vinodkumar appears for the 3rd respondent.
Adv.Smt.Moly Jacob appears for the 9th respondent. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 9th respondent. According to the counsel for the 9th respondent, the pathway in question is not a public pathway as alleged. No violation of Building Rules as alleged by the petitioner has also been committed by the 9th respondent. Complaints are according to the counsel, absolutely baseless.
3. Since the complaints are pending before respondents 3 and W.P.(C) No.21766 of 2014 2 5, it is only appropriate that the said authorities consider the complaints and passes appropriate orders thereon, without further delay. Respondents 3 and 5 are in a better position to take stock of the factual circumstances existing at site and to arrive at a full and final determination of the disputes.
4. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :
1) The 3rd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P2 complaint made by the petitioner in accordance with law, if necessary after conducting an inspection of the site and hearing the petitioner as well as the 9th respondent and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
2) The 5th respondent shall consider Ext.P4 representation submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law, if necessary after conducting an inspection of the site and hearing the petitioner as well as the 9th respondent and shall pass appropriate orders in the matter, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
AV