IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2010 / 21ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25385 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOYS ENTERPRISES, PO BOX NO.103, TB ROAD, THRISSUR-680 021, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR N.V.JOY. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, UDUMBANCHOLA, PIN 685 554. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, CHINNAKKANAL-685 618. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.M.P.SRIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 25385 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 12th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner purchased certain property by Ext.P1 sale deed. While the petitioner was constructing a resort therein, on the ground that one of the pattas issued in respect of the property to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner is a bogus one, a stop memo was issued to the petitioner. The said stop memo was issued against construction two years ago. The petitioner stopped the construction pursuant thereto. Recently, since the half-constructed-building was deteriorating, the petitioner tried to make some maintenance work, which was also restrained by Ext.P9 stop memo issued on 18.6.2010. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “A) Issue a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside Exhibit P6, P7 and P9, B) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ or order directing respondents to permit the petitioner to carryout the constructions in the property covered by Exhibit P1, C) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 1st respondent to take up and dispose off Exhibit P10 forthwith.” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. I am of opinion that the respondents are not justified in issuing a stop memo and leaving the matter at that for two years. w.p.c.25385/10 2 After having issued a stop memo the respondents have a duty to finalise the proceedings pursuant to the stop memo in accordance with law within a reasonable time. Two years are more than sufficient for the same. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents or the officer competent to do so, to pass final orders pursuant to the stop memo, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge