IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 W.P.(C).No. 18871 of 2008(V) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- P.K. SREEJA RAJAN, AGED 45 YEARS, D/O. GOPI, RAS COTTAGE, P.O. AZHEEKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJGOPAL RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM. 3. THE SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, PAPPINISSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PAPPINISSERY. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K.R. DEEPA, R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P. (C) No. 18871 OF 2008 - V = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th June 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner complains that a commercial complex constructed on the side of the Highway is exposed to threat of demolition. It is stated that the building is a two storied one and has been in existence for the last more than 10 years. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has now issued Ext. P9 notice alleging that the construction of the building is in violation of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification of 1991 and on that basis the building is threatened to be demolished. It is challenging Ext. P9 notice this writ petition is filed. 2. A reading of Ext. P9 shows that on the allegation that the building has been constructed in violation of the C.R.Z. Notification the petitioner has been called upon to show cause why steps shall not be taken against him. It is stated that if satisfactory reply is not received within the time specified further action will be continued. W.P.(C) No.18871 OF 2008 - 2 - On receipt pf Ext. P9, petitioner has filed his reply Ext. P10 and nothing is stated as to whether the 3rd respondent has taken any final decision in this matter. Therefore, Ext. P9 being only a show cause notice, I see no justification to entertain the writ petition. 3. Since the petitioner has already shown cause in response to Ext. P9 by filing Ext. P10 reply it is for the 3rd respondent to take decision on Ext. P10. If such decision is adverse to the petitioner, it is also open to the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy. Therefore leaving it open to the petitioner to await final order on Ext.P9 and thereafter to pursue his statutory remedy if final decision communicated on Ext.P10 is adverse to him, this writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-