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/-
