The contention of the petitioner is that the third respondent is effecting construction on a piece of land having an extent of 5.76 cents in Re.survey No.23/8 (old survey No.12/5) of Kodiyeri village in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules (for short the 'Rules) and without permit from the fourth respondent. Raising such contention, the petitioner preferred Ext.P6 complaint before the fourth respondent. It is the inaction by the fourth respondent despite the receipt of Ext.P6 that compelled the petitioner to file the captioned writ petition.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent and the learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. The case of the petitioner is that raising allegation that the third respondent is effecting construction in the aforementioned property without obtaining permit from the fourth respondent and in violation of the Rules, she filed Ext.P6 complaint before the fourth respondent. In case such a complaint is received, the Secretary of the fourth respondent is bound to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the complainant and also to the persons against whom such allegations were raised. In that view of the matter, without making any observation as to the merits of the rival contentions, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Secretary of the fourth respondent to consider Ext.P6 complaint and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously and in accordance with law, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) spc/ C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT September, 2010