AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—The Petitioner approached this Court praying for a direction to the 2nd Respondent to implement Ext.P2 communication described as prohibitory order. Reading of this order shows that by this communication, the Panchayath prohibited the 3rd Respondent from continuing the construction activities that was then going on. It is complaining of non-implementation of Ext.P2 the writ petition was filed.
Ext.P3 discloses that the Petitioner approached the 1st Respondent complaining of non-implementation of Ext.P2 and thereupon, 1st Respondent issued Ext.P3, requiring the Panchayath to implement Ext.P2. In this writ petition, the complaint is that even Ext.P3 is not implemented.
A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd Respondent. In the counter affidavit, the 2nd Respondent admits of having issued Ext.P2. However, it is further stated that after issuance of Ext.P2, they came to know that the dispute between the Petitioner and the 3rd Respondent was purely a private civil dispute and that therefore the Panchayth did not take any further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2.
There is no affidavit in reply to the counter affidavit filed by the Panchayath. Obviously, the dispute between the Petitioner and the 3rd Respondent was a private dispute. In such a case, the Panchayath can have no role to play. Therefore, the Panchayath cannot be directed to implement Ext.P2 nor can the 1st Respondent be directed to take further action based on Ext.P3.
The writ petition is dismissed.