IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 34327 of 2007(J)
1. SHAREEN HAFEES, W/O.ABDUL HAFEES,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, NORKA, DEPARTMENT
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
4. THE SECRETARY, KALLIYOOR GRAMA
5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
6. ANIL KUMAR, S/O.PANKAJAKSHAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :21/11/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
---------------------------------
W.P.C 34327 OF 2007
--------------------------------
Dated this the 21tST day of November, 2007
JUDGMENT
I do not propose to go into the merits of the grounds raised. The
petitioner was served with Ext.P8 order. According to the petitioner,
Ext.P8 is in violation of the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer
as Ext.P7. Since Ext.P7 order of the RDO has become final, it was not
proper on the part of the Panchayat Secretary to have issued Ext.P8 stop
memo which absolutely relies on the report by the Village Officer. But as
could be discerned from Ext.P8, it is only a show cause notice. Ext.P8,
invites explanation from the petitioner and the petitioner has already
submitted Ext.P9 explanation in response to Ext.P8.
The Writ petition will stand disposed of directing the 4th respondent to
hear the petitioner on Ext.P9 explanation and then only finalise the action
which is proposed as per Ext.P8. Decision as directed above shall be
taken by the 4th respondent at the earliest and at any rate within one
month of receiving a copy of this judgment. If the petitioner is desirous of
a hearing opportunity, it is open to the petitioner to make request in that
regard before the 4th respondent., in which case the same will be granted.
(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)
dpk