Loading...

Mohammed vs The Secretary on 13 May, 2010

Kerala High Court
Mohammed vs The Secretary on 13 May, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 14840 of 2010(D)


1. MOHAMMED,S/O.UMMER,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SECRETARY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SMT.T.V.NEEMA

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :13/05/2010

 O R D E R
                  P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
                   =============================
                    W.P.(C).No.14840 of 2010
                   ===============================
                Dated this the 13th day of May, 2010.

                           J U D G M E N T

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only

grievance now pressed before this Court is for a direction to be

given to the first respondent to consider and finalise Ext.P3, after

giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

2. The sequence of events shows that the petitioner had

approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C).No.10625 of 2010,

apprehending demolition of the construction made by the petitioner,

allegedly for deviating from the plan approved by the Panchayath;

which led to Ext.P2 judgment directing the respondent Panchayath

to consider Exts.P2 and P3 mentioned therein (in the light of Ext.P4

objection filed therein) simultaneously making clear that till the

proceedings were finalised as above, no demolition was to be

effected in the meanwhile. It is also brought to the notice of this

Court that, Ext.P5 communication has been issued by the

Panchayath on 20.4.2010, which is stated as not in conformity with

Ext.P2 judgment and hence is subjected to challenge.

W.P.(C).No.14840 of 2010 ::2::

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the second

respondent as well.

4. Obviously the direction contained in Ext.P2 judgment is

with regard to the demolition of the construction; whereas the the

Panchayath, as per Ext.P5, has only to stop further construction and

that’s all. Ext.P5, in other words, does not contain anything with

regard to demolition.

5. Taking note of the limited prayer now pressed by the

learned counsel for the petitioner, that Ext.P3 representation

already preferred before the first respondent is to be considered

and finalised, this Court does not find it necessary to issue any

separate notice to the first respondent for the time being, as no

‘fact adjudication’ is involved. The first respondent is directed to

consider Ext.P3 and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance

with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall

produce the copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ

petition before the first respondent for taking further steps.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,
Judge.

bkn/-

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information