IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 37004 of 2010(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JOY KUTTY,S/O.LATE GEEVARGHESE, AGED 62 YEARS,KANJIRAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, EDAVETTY.P.O,KARIKKODU VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SANU.S.PANICKER RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY,EDAVETTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, EDAVETTY,THODUPUZHA TALUK,IDUKKI DISTRICT- 685 602. 2. THE EDAVETTY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,EDAVETTY, THODUPUZHA TALUK,IDUKKI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - 685 602. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.37004/2010-A: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 07/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE OBJECTION PRESENTED TO THE R.1. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Prv. HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.37004 OF 2010 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P1 notice, for a direction commanding the respondents to regularise the construction of a wall made by the petitioner and for a direction commanding the respondents to keep in abeyance all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 notice till the request for regularisation is considered and orders passed. Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the lst respondent in issuing Ext.P1 notice demanding to demolition of the compound wall constructed by him. Petitioner submits that in order to prevent the sewage water emits from different properties towards the well of the petitioner, compound wall was constructed in his land and therefore the notice issued directing demolition of the boundary wall is not legal and proper. Petitioner submits that he has not violated the Building Rules. It is submitted that in Ext.P1 notice it -2- W.P.(C).No.37004/2010 is not stated what is the alleged violation of the Building Rules, which the petitioner committed and what are the portions to be demolished etc. and therefore, he is not in a position to comply with the direction stated therein. Petitioner further pointed out that on receipt of Ext.P1 notice he submitted Ext.P2 objection stating the true facts. But the same was not considered nor any order was passed till date. Though urgent notice was issued to the respondents, they did not enter appearance. The matter was heard in the absence of the respondents. Petitioner further submits that in addition to Ext.P2 objection he submitted a petition on 10/2/2011 requesting the respondents to regularise the construction. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 objection and the petition submitted on 10/2/2011, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The respondents shall keep in -3- W.P.(C).No.37004/2010 abeyance all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 notice, till the matter is finally disposal of. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.