Petitioners are the residents of ward No.5 of Thrikkakkara Municipality. The petitioners and family members are residing in F/1, F/2 and F/6 lines of Cardinal Nagar Junction. Their grievance is that certain local trouble shooters had constructed a concrete bench encroaching into the foot path of Thrikkakkara Municipality near to the Kollamkudy Mugal-Kangarapady Road in such a manner to cause obstruction to the pedestrians. It is their further contention that the construction of the said bench would cause nuisance to the residents of the locality and therefore, it is liable to be demolished. Raising such contention, the first petitioner made Exts.P1 and P3 complaints before the second respondent. Ext.P5 is the complaint made by the second petitioner. It is the inaction on the said complaint that constrained the petitioners to come up with the captioned writ petition seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the second respondent to demolish or remove the existing unauthorised construction of concrete bench from the Kollamkudimugal- Kangarapady road Cardinal Nagar junction with immediate effect.
2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the second respondent in this case. It is stated therein that the municipality had not spent any money for construction of the bench and in fact, it was constructed by the local people years back and what was done recently was only a repairing of the damaged bench by the local people about six months back. It is also stated therein that it is not true to say that the construction of the bench on the road side would cause nuisance to the pedestrians. It is further stated that on receipt of the complaints from the petitioners the matter was placed before the municipal council and it was included as item No.21 in the meeting held on 11.2.2014. The municipal council considered the matter and observed that the complaint is bereft of any bona fides. Ext.R2(a) is the decision taken by the council. Evidently, the council considered the complaint and took a decision not to demolish the concrete bench. There is no case for the petitioners that the concrete bench in question was constructed in such a manner to cause hindrance to the ingress and egress to their residential houses. In fact, there is no case that the said construction has been effected right in front of the house of any of the petitioners. Evidently, the municipal council took a decision as per Ext.R2(a) not to demolish the concrete bench. As noticed hereinbefore, it is stated that the bench in question was constructed by the local people years back and recently they have only effected repair of its damage. In the said circumstances, I do not think that this is a fit case for invocation of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the Local Self Government Institution after taking stock of the situation took a decision as is obvious from Ext.R2 (a). At the same time, if anti social activities are going on in the said place and the bench in question is being used for any such purposes, it will be open to the petitioners to bring it to the notice of the authorities through proper complaint. In such eventuality, it is only appropriate for the authorities to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
Subject to the above, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) spc/ C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT September, 2010