IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 1204 of 2006(R) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- V.K. KUNJU MOIDEEN, VEERASSERIL, CHENGALAM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SMT.GIRIJA.L. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 2. SECRETARY, THIRUVARPPU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KILIROOR NORTH P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3. DASAPPAN, ARUPARAYIL VEEDU, CHENGALAM, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR R3 BY SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (TR) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs WP(C).No. 1204/2006(R) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 01/07/2004. P2: COPY OF THE PROHIBITORY ORDER DATED 23/12/2005 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/12/2005 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT R.D.O. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ................................................. W.P(C) NO.1204 OF 2006 ......................................................................... Dated this the 8th March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner approached this Court praying for a direction to the 2nd respondent to implement Ext.P2 communication described as prohibitory order. Reading of this order shows that by this communication, the Panchayath prohibited the 3rd respondent from continuing the construction activities that was then going on. It is complaining of non-implementation of Ext.P2 the writ petition was filed. 2. Ext.P3 discloses that the petitioner approached the 1st respondent complaining of non-implementation of Ext.P2 and thereupon, 1st respondent issued Ext.P3, requiring the Panchayath to implement Ext.P2. In this writ petition, the complaint is that even Ext.P3 is not implemented. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent. In the counter affidavit, the 2nd respondent admits of having issued Ext.P2. However, it is further stated that after issuance of Ext.P2, they came to know that the dispute between W.P(C) NO.1204 OF 2006 2 the petitioner and the 3rd respondent was purely a private civil dispute and that therefore the Panchayth did not take any further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2. 4. There is no affidavit in reply to the counter affidavit filed by the Panchayath. Obviously, the dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent was a private dispute. In such a case, the Panchayath can have no role to play. Therefore, the Panchayath cannot be directed to implement Ext.P2 nor can the 1st respondent be directed to take further action based on Ext.P3. The writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. dmb