V.J. HYCINTH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the 3rd respondent i.e., the Secretary of the Kochi Municipal Corporation to deal with Ext.P1 complaint, as directed by the 2nd respondent, the District Collector, against the 4th respondent, who is a Ward Councillor of the Kochi Municipal Corporation. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent had trespassed into the property of the petitioner and his wife and had constructed a drainage. The wife of the petitioner filed a civil suit as O.S.No.496 of 2015 for fixation of boundary of a property and the suit is now pending consideration. On the opposite side of the property of the petitioner is the property of one Varghese, who is running a Sawmill, who, according to the petitioner, has encroached into the Government land adjacent to his property. According to the petitioner, nearby residents have also made such encroachments into the Government land, with the concurrence of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent has been propagating that petitioner is an encroacher of Government land, knowing fully well that it is not Government land and is the property of the petitioner, and that it was the Corporation of Kochi, who had encroached into the petitioner's property. So also, the 4th respondent is supporting the persons who have encroached into the Government land and is aiding them and also refrains from initiating action against them for recovery of the Government land from their unlawful possession. The act of the 4th respondent is discriminating the petitioner and others in violation of the Affirmation of his Oath as a Councillor. The 4th respondent is ill-motivated against the petitioner and is favouring the encroachers of Government land. The 4th respondent is also taking political vengeance against the petitioner who was a rival candidate of the petitioner in the election to the Corporation. Therefore, the 4th respondent has been misusing his position against the petitioner and in favour of the encroachers.

(3.) That apart, it is contended that, the persons residing in the area between Moolemkuzhy and Chemeens Junction in Ward No.24 have complained that the 4th respondent has unlawfully collected amounts in the guise of constructing a drainage. Petitioner has filed complaint before respondents 1 to 3, and the State Election Commission against the 4th respondent, however, no action was initiated. But, later Ext.P2 communication was forwarded by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent, directing the 3rd respondent to take appropriate legal action against the 4th respondent. Petitioner has also submitted Ext.P3 representation before the 3rd respondent. However, no action is initiated against the 4th respondent by any of the authorities.