IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 3545 of 2008(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. AMJITH V.A., S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN, VAIPPIPPADATH HOUSE, SANTHIPURAM P.O., SREENARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 2. SONA K.A., W/O. AMITH V.A., VAIPPIPPADATH HOUSE, SANTHIPURAM P.O., SREENARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SREENARAYANAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, P.O.SANTHIPURAM, THRISSUR-680 668. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATHILAKAM, KODUNGALLUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN BY G.P. SRI.MUHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 3545 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February , 2008 JUDGMENT In this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenge Ext.P2 stop memo issued by the Panchayat. Under Ext.P2, the petitioners were informed that on going construction violates Section 220(b) of the Panchayat Raj Act. Sri.S.Mohammed Al Rafi, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the road abutting the petitioners' plot has not been notified by the Panchayat for the purpose of Section 220 (b) of the Act . My attention was drawn by the learned counsel to my own judgment in Thomas Paul v. State of Kerala (2007 (1) KlT 267). 2. The learned counsel is certainly right when he submits that in view of the conceded position that the road in question is neither a National Highway nor a State Highway or major Districts Roads unless there is a gazette notification by the Panchayat including the road for the purpose of Section 220 (b), WPC No.3545/2008 2 Ext.P2 will be bad. But I do not propose to decide the issue finally since the petitioner has already submitted Ext.P5 appeal before the Panchayat council. I am told that even if Section 220 (b) applies, the alleged violation is only less than 3 cms. 2. I dispose of this Writ Petition directing the council for the Panchayat to take up Ext.P5 immediately, consider the same in the light of the principles laid down by this court in Thomas Paul's case (supra) and take a decision. Decision, as directed above, shall be taken in the next Panchayat council's meeting itself. Even if the Panchayat has issued gazette notification including the road in question for the purpose of notifying the road in question under Section 220 (b) of the Panchayat Raj Act, the council will take a decision bestowing as much sympathy as possible since the violation is just 3 cms. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. dpk WPC No.3545/2008 3