IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 25793 of 2007(U)
1. SHAFEEK.K., AGED 37 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY,PANDALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER,
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT,
4. P.K.JOLY, VALLIYAPANACKAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.SAJJU.S
For Respondent :SRI.SIBY MATHEW
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :15/10/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
..........................................................
W.P.(C)No.25793 OF 2007
...........................................................
DATED THIS THE 15TH OCTOBER, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Though a counter affidavit has been filed by the Panchayat
contending that the construction which is being undertaken by the 4th
respondent is not illegal, counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Panchayat is actually colluding with the 4th respondent.
2. I do not propose to examine the merits of the matter or the
genuineness of the petitioner’s grievance. Ext.P4 representation has
been submitted by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent-Deputy
Director of Panchayats. The 3rd respondent will take up Ext.P4, call for
a report from the 2nd respondent, hear the petitioner and the 4th
respondent, consider the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent-
Panchayat before this Court and take a final decision on Ext.P4 at the
earliest and at any rate within six weeks of receiving copy of this
judgment. The 4th respondent is reminded in the meanwhile that the
constructions which are being undertaken by him will be at his risk and
subject to any decision which may be taken by the 3rd respondent
pursuant to the above directions.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)
tgl
WP(C)N0.
-2-
WP(C)N0.
-3-