SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 6381

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
JOSHY THOMAS – Appellant
Versus
THE SECRETARY CHATHAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHYATH – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 3353 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SRINATH GIRISH, SMT.PRASUDHA.S, SHRI.BHARAT BHUSHAN
For the Respondents: VIDYA KURIAKOSE SR.GP

The court grants jurisdiction to the appropriate authority to consider a complaint while ensuring a fair hearing process to all parties involved.

Headnote:This writ petition seeks a writ of Mandamus for the 1st respondent to address a complaint regarding safety issues caused by the 2nd respondent's property. The court allowed the prayer, ensuring the 1st respondent considers the complaint after hearing the parties. The 1st respondent was directed to issue orders within two months after the judgment. The court emphasized that it has not evaluated the merits.

Table of Content
1. seeking relief through a writ petition for consideration of a complaint. (Para 1)
2. petitioner's consent on direction for consideration. (Para 2)
3. court deliberation on notice necessity. (Para 3)
4. instruction for fair hearing before decision. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, directing the 1 st respondent to consider, take a decision on Ext.P3 complaint and to take appropriate action against the 2 nd respondent with regard to the compound wall on the southern side of his property which is causing great danger to the life and property of the petitioner;

b) Dispense with the translations into English of Exts.P1, P3 and P4 which are in Malayalam; AND c) Grant such other or further relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the particular facts and circumstances of the case. ”

[SIC]

2. When this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P3.

3. The manner in which this writ petition is going to be disposed of, no notice is necessary to the respondents. If the respondents are aggrieved by any of the directions issued by this Court, the respondents are free to file review petition before this Court.

4. Since, the petitioner’s prayer is only for consideration of Ext.P3, I think that prayer can be allowed. But, I make it clear that, I have not considered the matter on merit, and the orders in Ext.P3 shall be passed only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent.

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

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

ii) The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition with Exhibits before the 1st respondent for compliance.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top