IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2011 / 29TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 15699 of 2011(J) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- BINDU SEKHAR, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.SREEKANDAN NAIR, INDU VIHAR, NOW RESIDING AT MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUTTOOR, THIRUVALLA. BY ADVS. SRI.P.HARIDAS SMT.S.SIKKY RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECRTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA - 689 101. 3. ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, THIRUVALLA - 689 101. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, KUTTOOR - 689 106. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 15699/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT FROM THE KUTTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 03/09/2010. P2: COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 02/08/2010. P2(a):COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 02/08/2010. P2(b):COPY OF THE MAHAZAR SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 02/08/2010. P3: COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 23/09/2010. P3(a):COPY OF THE MAHAZAR SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 22/09/2010. P3(b):COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 23/09/2010. P3(c):COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION STATEMENT MADE BY NEIGHBOUR PROPERTY OWNER DATED 22/09/2010. P3(d):COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION STATEMENT MADE BY NEIGHBOUR PROPERTY OWNER DATED 22/09/2010. P4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 01/11/2010 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 01/11/2010 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 29/12/2010 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.15699 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T Although the prayer sought in this writ petition is to quash Exts.P7 and P8, when the matter was taken up for hearing learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is confining the challenge against Ext.P8. 2. Ext.P8 is the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, calling for a report from the 3rd respondent and also, restraining the petitioner from proceeding with any work in the site mentioned therein. If as stated by the petitioner, Ext.P8 is illegal for any reason, the course that the petitioner has to adopt is to appear before the 2nd respondent, file her objections and get the order vacated. There is no averment in the writ petition that such a course was adopted by the petitioner. 3. Therefore, I leave it open to the petitioner to appear before the 2nd respondent and file her objection and direct that in which event, Ext.P8 shall be treated as a show W.P(C) No.15699 of 2011 2 cause notice and after hearing the petitioner fresh orders will be passed in the matter. It is clarified that depending upon the order so passed, the petitioner can proceed with the work of construction undertaken on the strength of Ext.P1 building permit obtained by her from the Panchayat concerned. The writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC ab JUDGE W.P(C) No.15699 of 2011 3