JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

“i) to declare that the action of the 2nd respondent to construct a public e toilet in front of the house of the petitioner so as to prejudicially injure the petitioner in a unilateral manner without hearing the petitioner or consulting the petitioner is highhanded, arbitrary and unfair and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution;

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order of direction, directing the 2nd respondent to stop the construction of public e-toilet in front of the petitioner's house as proposed now and to direct them to make such construction only in some alternate site without causing inconvenience and nuisance to citizens;

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction, order directing the respondents to remove the construction and other construction already effected by the 2nd respondent for constructing the public e toilet in front of the petitioner's house;

iv). issue such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.” (SIC)

2. The petitioner is an eye specialist. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent is proceeding to construct a public e-toilet in front of the residence of the petitioner causing nuisance and injury to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the said location in front of the house of the petitioner is most unsuitable and inappropriate for pubic e-toilet and the said location will not serve the purpose of public e-toilet. It is also submitted that there are several alternate more suitable and appropriate sites for public e-toilet in the said area. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. When this writ petition came for consideration on

11.01.2013, this Court passed the following order:-

“Counsel for the Municipality seeks a weeks time to file counter affidavit. It is submitted by the counsel for the Municipality that for the time being the construction of the E-toilets has been kept in abeyance.

Therefore, there shall be an interim direction to the second respondent to maintain the status quo in respect of the construction of the E-toilets, for a period of two weeks. File Counter affidavit in

the meantime.”

The interim order was extended regularly and the same was extended until further orders on 21.08.2013. The petitioner already filed Ext.P3 before the 2nd respondent. If that is the case, there can be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the same and till then, the interim order already passed can be allowed to continue.

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

1. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders in Ext.P3, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

2. Till final orders are passed, the order dated 11.01.2013, which is extended until further orders on 21.08.2013, will continue.

3. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

bng

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 814/2013 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED

16.05.2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT-P2 PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION CARRIED OUT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OF THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT-P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE

2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.12.2012.

EXHIBIT-P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT IN KERALA KAUMUDHI DATED 06.01.2013.

EXHIBIT-P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN MADHYAMAM DAILY DATED

07.01.2013.