RAMADAS.K Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext.P1 order issued by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam and Ext.P2 order issued by the Secretary of the respondent - Panchayat.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the disputes between him and the 7th respondent began when a retaining wall constructed by the latter in the year 2015 collapsed and when he refused to reconstruct or repair the same. The petitioner says that as matters now stand, the balance portion of the retaining wall is also likely to collapse and that this will cause unspeakable consequences to him and his family.

(3.) The petitioner says that, therefore, he preferred an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO for short) under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and that the RDO directed the 7th respondent to rectify the nuisance. He says that the 7th respondent thereafter challenged this order before the Sessions Court and obtained Ext.P1 order, which set it aside. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P1 be quashed and the RDO's order be reinstated. He further says that he has preferred an application before Secretary of the Panchayat, which led to Ext.P2 order; wherein, even though the said Authority directed the 7th respondent to restore the compound wall, he has in mulcted with 60% of the charges for the same and he says that this completely without basis and is thus untenable. He therefore, prays that Ext.P2 also be set aside.