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) 13667

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
T.T JOSEPH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 36942 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.K.C.BEENA
For the Respondents: SMT. K B REKHA, SC, GP, SRI. K JANARDHANA SHENOY

Court mandates timely consideration of public grievances related to local government projects.

Headnote:The petition seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the local Panchayat to construct proper drainage for rainwater. The grievance arose from the non-consideration of a prior complaint (Ext.P2). The prevailing status discussions indicated possible inclusion of the project in the next financial year. The court directed the Panchayat to consider Ext.P2 with an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard, mandating a decision within one month. The final decision necessitates immediate consideration of public complaints.

Table of Content
1. writ petition seeks construction of drainage. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding project consideration discussed. (Para 3 , 4)

JUDGMENT

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

"i)To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, direction, direct the 2nd and 3rd respondent to redress the grievance of the petitioner by constructing proper drainage to drain the rain water to the nearby thodu or field.

ii)Any other reliefs which may be prayed for from time to time, in the interest of justice."

[SIC]

2. The main prayer in this Writ Petition is to issue appropriate direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to redress the grievance of the petitioner by constructing proper drainage to drain the rain water to the nearby ‘thodu’. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 complaint before the Panchayat. The same is not considered is the grievance. Hence, this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat and also the learned Government Pleader.

4. The Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat submitted that there is an understanding to the effect that the project can be included in the next financial year’s project. 5. If that be the case, there can be a direction to the Panchayat to consider Ext.P2 with notice to the petitioner, and necessary orders should be passed by the Panchayat to that effect.

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

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