IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32982 of 2010(W)
1. JOHN MATHAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
4. JOBY MATHAI,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.P.JACOB
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :01/11/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 32982 OF 2010 (W)
=====================
Dated this the 1st day of November, 2010
J U D G M E N T
In this writ petition, what is under challenge is Ext.P7, a
prohibitory order issued alleging violation of the provisions
contained in Act 28 of 2008. It is seen that subsequently for the
very same reasons, Ext.P8 show cause notice has been issued by
the District Collector, calling upon the petitioner to show cause
why action shall not be initiated. On receipt of the show cause
notice, petitioner has filed Ext.P9 application as well. It is during
the pendency of such proceedings that the petitioner has filed this
writ petition challenging Ext.P7.
2. In my view, Ext.P7 has been issued only to ensure that
further works are not carried out by the petitioner and cannot be
impugned. Having regard to the fact that subsequently show
cause notice has been issued and the petitioner has filed his
explanation to the show cause notice, at this stage, all that is
required is that the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P8 should be
finalised by the 3rd respondent.
Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that on the
WPC No. 32982/10
:2 :
production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this
writ petition, the 3rd respondent will issue notice to the petitioner
and the 4th respondent and untramelled by the findings in Ext.P7,
finalise the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P8, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate within 4 weeks thereafter.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp