Ramachandra Menon,J.
Petitioner, who is a member of the concerned local authority/ 2nd respondent Grama Panchayat, has approached this Court with the following prayers:-
“1. Direct the respondents to stop all further proceedings in connection with the inauguration of the High Mast Light situated in Udayamperoor town.
ii. Direct the respondents to take immediate steps to change the position of the High Mast Light to the recently renovated bus bay at Udayamperoor town, which is just opposite to the current place.
iii. Direct the electricity board not to give electric connection to the current High Mast Light before relocation of the said lights to the new place.
iv. Conduct an enquiry to find those persons who had played their role in fixing the light in the wrong place. Also make them liable for cutting down the branches of a tree for fulfilling their ulterior motive.”
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent Panchayat had taken a decision as per Ext.P1 resolution to request the concerned Member of the Parliament to extend necessary help to install High Mast Lights in some junctions of the street, as mentioned in Ext.P1. Considering the request of the Panchayat, necessary funds were released by the Member of Parliament and making use of it, High Mast Lights have been installed (as reflected from the photographs produced along with the writ petition, particularly Ext.P7 series). The grievance of the petitioner is that, one of the High Mast Lights, as shown in Ext.P7, is just behind a tree standing on the side of the road and the branches of the tree cause hindrance to the light and thus the purpose is not actually served. It is stated that there is much space on the opposite side of the road and that the High Mast Light is to be relocated. Hence, this writ petition, styled as a public interest litigation.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
4. On going through the pleadings and proceedings, it is seen that the decision was taken by the Panchayat, as early as on 20.08.2013 vide Ext.P1 and even according to the petitioner, the installation was completed and completion certificate was issued as per Ext.P2 dated 03.03.2014. The petitioner does not have a case that the disputed location was ever objected by the petitioner, despite the fact that he happens to be a ward member of the Panchayath. It is also to be noted that the petitioner chose to approach this Court only on 28.05.2014 by filing the present writ petition. Even Ext. P6 representation before first respondent/District Collector is dated 20.05.2014.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader, this Court finds that this is not a fit case to call for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with regard to the alleged grievance of the petitioner, sought to be projected as a Public Interest Litigation . If the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner, it is open for the petitioner to bring it to the notice of the Panchayat or such other authorities, for causing necessary arrangements for shifting and the matter could be pursued and proceeded accordingly. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed.
MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
sj