The Court affirmed the need for timely action on public pathway encroachment complaints under the Kerala Municipality Act.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Issue a writ of mandamus, any other writ, appropriate order or direction, directing the 2nd Respondent to consider Exhibit P4 petition and remove the encroachment over the pathway in Division No.57, in CC Lane of Kochi Corporation and enter the same in to the Asset register.

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus, any other writ and appropriate order directing the 1st Respondent to remove the encroachment in public pathway and make it free for access of public.

iii. Issue a Writ or any other order declaring that the pathway in Division No.57, in CC Lane of Kochi Corporation comes under the definition of 'road'

defined in Kerala Municipality Act 1994.

iv. To dispense with the English translation of vernacular documents.

v. Provide cost of the proceedings.

(SIC)

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 4^th respondent encroached a pathway and the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 and the 2^nd respondent is not considering the same even though Ext.P6 judgment is there. Hence this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. I also heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation and the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent.

4. This Court perused Ext.P6. It will be better to extract the same:

“Petitioner alleges that a pathway which is under the control of the 1st respondent has been blocked by the 4th respondent. Despite a complaint filed as Ext.P5, no action has been initiated and hence he has approached this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent, on the other hand submitted that, the pathway is a private pathway and the corporation has no authority to decide on the complaint produced as Ext.P5.

3. I have heard Sri.Sherry J.Thomas, the counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.Janardhana Shenoy, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kochi Corporation as well.

4. Having considered the submissions made across the Bar, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of by directing the 2nd respondent or any competent Officer under him to dispose of Ext.P5 in a time-bound manner.

5. Hence, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent or a Competent Officer under him to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent.

6. It is clarified that this Court has not decided any of the contentions of the parties on merits and the Competent Officer of the 2nd respondent will be entitled to consider the jurisdiction to decide such an issue as well. If in case any assistance is required from the 3rd respondent to measure the property, the same shall also be provided by the said respondent upon a request by the 2nd respondent.

The writ petition is disposed of.”

5. I am surprised to see that even after Ext.P6 judgment, the Corporation authorities have not taken any steps. Therefore, there can be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to see that the direction in Ext.P6 judgment is complied forthwith.

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

1. The 2^nd respondent will see that the direction in Ext.P6 judgment is complied in letter and spirit, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

2. If the petitioner is forced to file any contempt, the 2^nd respondent alone will be responsible and he has to face serious consequences.

3. While deciding the matter as directed in Ext.P6 judgment, sufficient opportunity of hearing should be given to the petitioner and the 4^th respondent.