IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 6663 of 2009(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.STAR CHARITABLE SOCIETY, REGISTRATION NO.A-30471/2006, EZHUPUNNA, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT, MR.SHIJU KAMAL. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PRESIDENT, PATTANAKKAD BLOCK PANCHAYATH, PATTUNAKKAD, SHERTHALAY. 2. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PATTANAKKAD. 3. PREERAK, SASHRATHA MISSION, OFFICE OF THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PATTANAKKAD. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETAIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR FOR R1-3 SRI.SANTHOSH PETER (MAMALAYIL) FOR R1-3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N SATHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.6663 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner is occupying a building owned by the Pattanakkad Block Panchayat, where it is stated that the petitioner is running computer classes. While so, the respondents called upon the petitioner to vacate the premises. It is in these circumstances the writ Petition is filed. 2. Although, several issues have been raised in the writ petition when the matter came up for orders before this court the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner confines his request to allow the petitioner 3 months time to vacate the possession of the building on account of the fact that the ongoing batch will be completed the studies by that time. wp(C).nO.6663/09 2 3. I heard the Counsel appearing for the respondent Panchayat, who points that that the petitioner is liable to vacate the premises, primarily for the reason that they have misused the name of the Panchayat itself. 4. Irrespective of the allegations raised against the petitioner, facts remains that the petitioner has been in occupation of the building for quite sometime and the students admitted by them for computer classes are undergoing training at present, which they will be completing in another 3 months. If so, at this stage, if the petitioner is evicted that will certainly affect the classes and in turn the students. In order to avoid that contingency, I feel that the petitioner should be allowed 3 months more time so that the classes will be over by then. 5. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the petitioner be permitted to continue occupation of the building belonging to the first respondent Panchayat for a period of 3 months from today. It is made clear that this wp(C).nO.6663/09 3 indulgence is shown to the petitioner taking note of the undertaking given before this court that they will, on the expiry of the 3 months, surrender the building without any objection whatsoever and on condition that rent and other dues will be paid without any default in the meanwhile. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ wp(C).nO.6663/09 4