IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 35604 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.A.MUHAMMED, S/O.ABOOBACKER 45 YEARS, NATHAKKATT HOUSE NORTH EZHIPRAM, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.P.P.BIJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYAT REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VENGOLA, PERUMBAVOOR. 2. ELIAMMA, W/O.GEORGE, KRIPALAYAM, 32/1039, PIPELINE ROAD, PALARIVATTOM. ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU FOR R2 SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN FOR R2 SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 35604 of 2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ARAKKAPADY DATED 27.11.2008. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.11.2008 TO R1. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29.11.2008 TO R1. R2'S EXHIBITS EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A-575/1999 DATED 04-06-1999 ISSUED BY THE VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.R2(b): COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE TAHSILDAR DATED 01.09.2008. EXT.R2(c): COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.11.2008 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.R2(d): COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04.12.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.35604 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner filed this writ petition complaining of illegal construction of a pig farm by the 2nd respondent in a property adjacent to the petitioner's property. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent – Panchayat submitted before me that the Panchayat has already issued a stop memo to the 2nd respondent. In the above circumstances, I passed an interim order on 11.12.2008 to the effect that the 1st respondent – Panchayat shall enforce the stop memo, if necessary, with police aid. 2. The 2nd respondent with the help of a counter affidavit disputes the contentions of the petitioner that the construction is unauthorised. But she does not dispute that the Panchayat has issued a stop memo. 3. I am not inclined to consider the contentions of the 2nd respondent in this writ petition, in so far as the 2nd respondent has not challenged the stop memo, which is produced as W.P.(c) No.35604/08 2 Ext.R2(c). After issuing the stop memo, the Panchayat is duty bound to see that the same is duly enforced. If the 2nd respondent is aggrieved by the stop memo, it is for the 2nd respondent to challenge that stop memo appropriately. In fact the 2nd respondent has already filed Ext.R2(d) objections to the stop memo which she can pursue in accordance with law. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the 2nd respondent to challenge that stop memo, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the interim order dated 11.12.2008. I make it clear that if the 2nd respondent succeeds in her challenge against the stop memo, it would be open to the 2nd respondent to continue construction. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c) No.35604/08 3