IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8025 of 2009(W)
1. STONAGE TOURIST COMPLEX
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY, VAZHATHOPE GRAMA
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.C.S.MANILAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :01/04/2009
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P(C).No.8025 of 2009
==================
Dated this the 1st day of April, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a firm who wants to construct a building. Permit
has been issued by the Panchayat. However, apparently based on the
information received from the Town Planner to the effect that the
proposed construction is in a construction free zone, the Panchayat
has taken proceedings to cancel the permit. But the Panchayat
themselves are of opinion that the area in question is a commercial
zone and there are several commercial constructions in that area. In
the above circumstances, the Panchayat themselves have forwarded
Exts.P8 and P12 resolutions to the Government seeking
reconsideration of the matter. The petitioner has also filed Ext.P13
representation before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner now seeks a
direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate
orders on Exts.P8, 12 and P13 after affording an opportunity of being
heard to the petitioner and all concerned.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the 1st respondent as
also the learned Government Pleader.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of opinion
that the 2nd respondent should address himself to the issue involved.
Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 2nd
w.p.c.8025/09 2
respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P8, P12 and P13 after
affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the 1st
respondent and any other person, if involved, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of
a certified copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall
be permitted to continue construction at their own risk and if
ultimately they lose their case, they would be liable to demolish the
same.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge
w.p.c.8025/09 3
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P(C).No.8025 of 2009
==================
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2009
O R D E R
Learned Government Pleader shall get instructions from the 2nd
respondent as to why the 2nd respondent cannot take a decision on
Exts.P8 and P12 resolutions and Ext.P13 representation of the
petitioner.
Post on 1.4.2009.
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE w.p.c.8025/09 4