IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2008 / 30TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 9218 of 2008(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SRI.A.T.RAJEEV, AMBATTUKUNNEL HOUSE, POOCHATTI, ERAVIMANGALAM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE SMT.M.N.MAYA RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, NADATHARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NADATHARA, THRISSUR. 2. SRI.K.O.SUNNY, KURIANPARAMBIL HOUSE, NADATHARA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) FOR R2 SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU FOR R2 SRI.M.GEORGE THOMAS FOR R1 SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R1 SRI.JIBU P THOMAS FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 9218 OF 2008 V ==================== Dated this the 21st day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext.P5 order of the Municipality is under challenge. 2. The allegation of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent constructed a building in violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and the permit that was granted by the Municipality. By Ext.P3 judgment of this court, the 1st respondent was directed to consider the representation made by the petitioner in this behalf and it was accordingly that after hearing both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, Ext.P5 order was passed by the 1st respondent. 3. In Ext.P5, it has been held that the 2nd respondent was directed not to deviate from the approved plan and the rules. There is also a finding that the width of the sunshade, the objectionable construction alleged to have been undertaken by the 2nd respondent, has been reduced and therefore, there is nothing objectionable in the construction made by the 2nd respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by order dated 28/3/2008 WPC 9218/08 :2 : discloses that the finding regarding the modification made to the sun shade as contained in Ext.P5 is incorrect. On a reading of the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner, I am not in a position to find anything as contended and interfere with the finding in Ext.P5. Since, I am not in a position to find that Ext.P5 is illegal as contended by the counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp