IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2009 / 9TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27621 of 2009(W) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- BABU JOHN, PALATHUMPATTU HOUSE, THITTAMEL KARA, CHANGANNUR PO., ALEEPEEY DISTRICT, REPRSENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER NINAN JOHN. BY ADVS MR.M.V.BOSE, MR.VINOD MADHAVAN, SMT.NISHA BOSE. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE SECRETARY KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY ,KOTTAYAM. 3 . THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOTTAYAM. 4. R.RAMAKRISHNAN, NARMADA, K.K.ROAD., KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 5. R.RADHA, W/O.R.RAMAKRISHNAN, NARMADA, K.K.ROAD. KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 6. R.VENKATESH, S/O.R.RAMAKRISHNAN, NARMADA, K.K.ROAD. KOTTAYAM - 686 001. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. MR.SIBY MATHEW, MR.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU, MR.B.PREMNATH (E). R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.27621 of 2009-W = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of October, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.Notice to respondents 4 to 6 dispensed with preserving their right to seek re-hearing of this writ petition, if aggrieved. 2.Learned standing counsel appears for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader appears for third respondent. 3.As is evident from the first page of Ext.P4, that document is only a notice calling upon respondents 4 to 6 to show cause against confirmation of the provisional order which is part of Ext.P4. Obviously, therefore, it may not be proper for this Court to compel enforcement of the provisional order even before respondents 4 to 6 have the opportunity to show cause. Since WPC27621/09 -: 2 :- the petitioner appears to be the objector, he may also be entitled to be heard in connection with Ext.P4 proceedings. For the aforesaid reasons, it is ordered that Ext.P4 proceedings shall be concluded in a time bound manner as prescribed by the statute and after hearing the necessary parties, including the petitioner. If any order interdicting further construction is found necessary, that would also be considered. The petitioner's right to challenge Ext.P2 is preserved for being agitated, if he is ultimately aggrieved by the decision of the LSGI authorities, including the Tribunal. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/051009