IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29203 of 2008(B)
1. P.HAMZA, S/O ABOOBACKER, PROPRIETOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY, KUMILY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
... Respondent
2. KUMILY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KUMILY, IDUKKI
For Petitioner :SRI.G.HARIHARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :07/10/2008
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P(C).No.29203 of 2008
==================
Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is challenging Ext.P16 order whereby the
petitioner has been directed to demolish a building constructed
by the petitioner. The petitioner’s contention in this writ petition
is that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing
W.P(C).No.27064/2007 in which the following judgment was
passed:
“No representation for the petitioner. Sri.S.Shanavas Khan, the
learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat submits that Ext.P10 can
be construed as an appeal against Ext.P9 order. Under these
circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition itself directing the Kumily
Grama Panchayat to take up Ext.P10, hear the petitioner and any other
concerned party and dispose of the same in accordance with law at the
earliest and at any rate within one month of receiving a copy of this
judgment. Considering the above direction, Ext.P9 is ordered to be
kept in abeyance till Ext.P10 is disposed of.”
2. According to the petitioner, the Panchayat could not
have passed Ext.P16 order without complying with Ext.P11
judgment, especially when this Court had directed that, the
earlier order, which was produced as Ext.P9 in that writ petition,
had been directed to be kept in abeyance till the appeal is
disposed of as contemplated in Ext.P11 judgment.
3. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing
2
for the Panchayat also.
4. The Standing Counsel for the Panchayat could not
satisfy me that an order as contemplated in Ext.P11 judgment
has been passed after hearing the petitioner, although the
counsel would try to argue that Ext.P16 is the order passed
pursuant to Ext.P11 judgment.
5. In Ext.P11 judgment what has been directed is to
consider the petitioner’s appeal. Evidently there is no
consideration of such an appeal in Ext.P16. In an appeal the
order should be either dismissing or allowing or disposing of the
appeal. There is no such finding in Ext.P16. All what has been
stated therein is a direction to the petitioner to demolish his
building. Therefore, clearly Ext.P16 is not an order as
contemplated in Ext.P11. Accordingly, Ext.P16 is quashed. The
Panchayat is directed to comply with Ext.P11 judgment before
proceeding further in the matter.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge
3