A Writ of Mandamus was required for timely consideration of the petitioner's representation concerning property access issues.

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to take emergent action on Exhibit P3 and remove the flag post and statue erected on the road margin, in front of the property of the petitioner in accordance with law within a timeframe manner;

ii) Dispense with filing of English Translation of the vernacular documents.

iii) Award the cost of the petitioner;

iv) Issue such other reliefs that this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved because a statue and a flag is erected in front of the petitioner's property affecting the ingress and egress to the property. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation before the 2^nd respondent. The same is not considered is the grievance of the petitioner. The petitioner also relied on Ext.P2 judgment. Hence this Writ Petition is filed.

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

4. After hearing both sides, I am of the considered opinion that this Writ Petition need not be retained here. There can be a direction to consider Ext.P3, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other affected parties, if any.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:

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

2. While deciding the matter, the 2^nd respondent will also consider the applicability of Ext.P2 judgment also. Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE DM