IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 30417 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ABDUL LATHEEF P.M., S/O MUHAMMED MASTER, PADIYATH BLANGACHAL, KALIKAVU P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. JASEEN LATHEEF, W/O. ABDUL LATHEEF P.M., PADIYATH BLANGACHAL, KALIKAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH,KALIKAVU P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KALIKAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KALIKAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KALIKAVU P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, NILAMBUR TALUK OFFICE, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE STATE OFKERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETAR TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 30417/2008. --------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 COPY OF ASSIGNMENT DEED D5. 3-11-2007. EXT.P2 DO. DT. 3-12-2007. EXT.P3(a) RECEIPT DT. 9-11-1991. EXT.P3(b) DO. DT. 9-11-1991. EXT.P3(c) DO. DT. 30-3-1996. EXT.P3(d) DO. DT. 22-9-2001. EXT.P3(e) DO. DT. 20-11-2003. EXT.P3(f) DO. DT. 15-10-2005. EXT.P4(a) DO. DT. 22-9-2001. EXT.P4(b) RECEIPT DT. 13-11-2002. EXT.P4(c) DO.DT. 15-10-2003. EXT.P5 NOTICE DT. 17-3-2008. EXT.P6 MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DT. 16-6-2008. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 30417 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 9th December, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges the constitutional validity of Section 249(1)(a) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, which mandates that before filing a suit against the Panchayat, the Panchayat shall be given 30 days' notice. Since the subject matter of the writ petition required urgent orders, I granted an interim stay to facilitate the petitioner's filing a suit after issuing notice as provided in Section 249 (1)(a). Now counsel for the petitioner submits that the Panchayat has passed a resolution in favour of the petitioner which needs only to be implemented. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of reserving the right of the petitioner to seek enforcement of the resolution now stated to have been passed leaving open the legal question regarding the validity of Section 249(1)(a). Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/