petitioner has been closed by some people in the neighbourhood and consequently, the flow of water through the drain is obstructed. As per Ext.P2, the petitioner had requested the second respondent to take appropriate action to remove the obstruction caused to the flow of water through the public drain.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Panchayat, wherein it is stated that Ext.P2 complaint of the petitioner was enquired into by the Panchayat and it was found that W.P(C) No. 6709 of 2014 2 the same is a bogus one. There is no statement in the counter affidavit as to whether the allegation in Ext.P2 complaint that there exists a public drain on the northern side of the property of the petitioner and that the flow of water through the said public drain has been obstructed by the people in the neighborhood. As such, according to me, the complaint has to be considered by the second respondent.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to take up Ext.P2 complaint and take appropriate action thereon, after affording the petitioner and other affected persons an opportunity of hearing, within a period of one month from today.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE //true copy// P.A. To Judge smv