The decision underscores the principle of procedural fairness in property disputes, necessitating consideration of representations made by property owners.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers : (i) “Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondents to remove the electric post erected in the petitioner's property without prior consent.

(ii) Issue a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 representation submitted by the petitioner.

(iii) To grant such other reliefs which are deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.” [SIC]

2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 8 ares and 9 sq.metres of property comprised in Survey No. 122/2A-3 of Kulasekharamangalam Village in Kottayam District. It is the case of the petitioner that without obtaining the prior permission of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent had erected electric post in the petitioner’s property completely blocking the ingress and egress to the petitioner’s property. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation before the 2nd respondent and the same is not considered is the grievance of the petitioner. It is also submitted that there will not be any objection to the petitioner if one post is erected without obstructing the ingress or egress to the property of the petitioner.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. When this writ petition came up for consideration on

9.12.2022, this Court ordered status quo till today. Admittedly, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation before the 2nd respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I think there can be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 representation and till considering the same, the status quo can continue.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following prayers :

1) There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 representation, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

2) Till final orders are passed as directed above, the status quo as on today will continue.