IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2010 / 2ND MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2223 of 2010(C) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- R.VIVEKANANDAN, S/O.LATE K.R.DHARMANDI, AGED 59 YEARS, KARADATHODI HOUSE, OOTTARA, VADAVANNOOR, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 2. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, VADAVANNUR, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. THE SECRETARY, VADAVANNUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VADAVANNUR, KOLLENGODE VIA., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. K.SANTHAKUMAR, PROPRIETOR, M/S.R.R.MODERN RICE MILL, VADAVANNUR, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD. MS. K.R. DEEPA GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.2223 of 2010 (C) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Exts.P4 & P5. Ext.P4 is an order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in Appeal No.923/2009 filed by the 4th respondent. Ext.P5 is the consequential order passed by the 3rd respondent. 2. The petitioner contends that Ext.P4 order is illegal for the reason that the Tribunal has directed that ignoring the requirement of Act 28 of 2008, building permit can be granted. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are contained in paragraph 9, and I am not able to read from the said paragraph any such direction on the part of the Tribunal. On the other hand, if in the process of carrying out the directions of the Tribunal, the Secretary of the Panchayat has committed any illegality, it is up to the petitioner to seek statutory remedies against Ext.P5. Therefore, I am not persuaded to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg