High Court Kerala High Court

M.K.Sreedharan vs The Secretary on 13 August, 2010

Kerala High Court
M.K.Sreedharan vs The Secretary on 13 August, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 19997 of 2010(Y)


1. M.K.SREEDHARAN, AGED 62, S/O.KRISHNAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SECRETARY,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :13/08/2010

 O R D E R
                T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                 W.P.(C). No.19997/2010-Y
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
           Dated this the 13th day of August, 2010

                      J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved by the stop memo issued by

the Panchayat as per Ext.P2. It is pointed out that the

petitioner is the owner of 6 cents 800 sq.links of property

in Re-survey No.339/7 of Thiruvamkulam Village. The

petitioner applied for a permit to construct a compound

wall for the remaining property, i.e. the property

excluding the area surrendered for the purpose of widening

a road. Though a permit was issued as per Ext.P1, when

construction was started, Ext.P2 stop memo was issued.

According to the petitioner, the reasons stated in the stop

memo are not correct. The petitioner submitted Ext.P6

reply to the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that even though Ext.P7 notice was issued

proposing a hearing on 29/06/2010, the same was adjourned

and so far, no action has been taken in the matter. It is

pointed out that the delay will put the petitioner in real

hardship.

2. Therefore, there will be a direction to the

respondent to take a decision after hearing the petitioner

within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this Judgment. All the aspects raised by the

W.P.(C). No.19997/2010
-:2:-

petitioner will be considered and appropriate decision will

be taken and communicated to the petitioner also.

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

ms