High Court Kerala High Court

Sivaraman Soman vs The Secretary on 10 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
Sivaraman Soman vs The Secretary on 10 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 17242 of 2008(C)



1. SIVARAMAN SOMAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. THE SECRETARY, KOTTUVALLY GRAMA PANCHT
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ISSAC M.PERUMPILLIL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :10/06/2008

 O R D E R
                         ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

                  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                  =W.P.(C) = = = = = = = = = = =
                            No. 17242 OF 2008 (C)
                    = = =

                    Dated this the 10th June 2008

                            J U D G M E N T

Petitioners are aggrieved by Exts. P4 and P6 issued by the 1st

respondent Panchayat describing the construction to be in violation

of the CRZ Notification of 1991. On this basis, petitioner has been

directed to demolish the structures. In Ext. P9 order of the Apex

Court, it was clarified that a dispute as to whether a particular

structure or area comes within the Coastal Regulation Zone is a

matter to be clarified by a Coastal Zone Management Authority.

Taking advantage of Ext. P9 which has been followed by this Court

in Ext. P10 judgment in W.P.(C) No. 11901/08, petitioner has filed

Ext. P12 application before the Coastal Zone Management Authority

which is the 3rd respondent in this writ petition.

2. In this writ petition what is sought for by the petitioners is

a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.

P12. In view of the pendency of Ext. P12 before the 3rd respondent

as stated by the petitioners, I feel, there is no reason to decline the

W.P.(C) No. 17242 OF 2008

– 2 –

reliefs sought for by the petitioners.

3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing that

the 3rd respondent shall take note of Ext.P12, hear the petitioners

and pass orders thereon. This shall be done as expeditiously as

possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this

judgment. It is also directed that in the meanwhile further

proceedings pursuant to Exts. P4 and P6, will be kept in abeyance

by the Panchayat.

Petitioners shall produce copies of this judgment before

respondents 1 and 3 for compliance, along with a copy of this writ

petition.

ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-