IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 W.P(C).No. 17242 of 2008(C) PETITIONERS: 1. SIVARAMAN SOMAN, SREEVALSAM APARTMENTS, PONOTH ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI - 17. 2. SAKTHIDHARANH PANDIT, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, VALLUVALLY. BY ADV. SRI.ISSAC M.PERUMPILLIL SRI.JIJO PAUL KALLOOKKARAN RESPONDENTS: 1. THE SECRETARY, KOTTUVALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOONAMMAVU P.O., VALLUVALLY. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KERALA STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, SHASTHRE BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE UNION OF INIDA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & FOREST, NEW DELHI. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K.R. DEEPA A.S.G. SRI. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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/-