IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2008 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8546 of 2008(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MADALAN IBRAHIM, S/O.IBRAHIM, AGED 66 YEARS, SUJAAJA MANZIL, CHUDALA, P.O., CHITHAPPILE POYIL, PARIYARAM, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE PARIYARAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PARIYARAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ======================= W.P.(C)No. 8546 of 2008 ======================= DATED THIS THE 17th day of March 2008 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner is that buildings constructed by him have not been numbered. He had approached this Court earlier when he was issued with Ext.P3 notice and this Court disposed of that writ petition by passing Ext.P4 judgment. Under Ext.P4 judgment, the parties have been directed to construe Ext.P3 as a show cause notice and the petitioner has been permitted to file explanation.. Pursuant to Ext.P4, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 explanation. Sri.T. Sethumadhavan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Panchayath has not taken any further action in Ext.P5. 2. Having regard to the averments in the writ petition and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of at this stage itself without notice to the Panchayat, issuing the following directions: 3. The Panchayath will consider Ext.P5 explanation submitted by the petitioner, hear the petitioner and pass final orders on the request of the petitioner contained in Exts.P1 and P2 and also regarding the finalisation of Ext.P3, which W.P.C. 8546/2008 -2- as per orders of this Court is to be construed only as a show cause notice. While, passing final orders as directed above, the Panchayath will have due regard to the petitioner's contention that neighbouring buildings which were constructed more or less at the same time and which are in a line that the building of the petitioner have been numbered and no proceedings have been initiated for demolition of these buildings. The Panchayath will also have due regard to the principles laid down by this Court in Thomas Paul v. State of Kerala, 2007(1)K.L.T.267. Till such time as final orders as directed above are passed, Ext.P3 shall be kept in abeyance. The outer time limit for passing final orders shall be one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE ks.