IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2011 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1862 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.27738/2010 Dated 11/08/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): ------------------- T.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN, THE PRESIDENT, ANDROTH TOWN PLAN ACTION COUNCIL, ANDROTH, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL. S RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. JALALUDHEEN KOYA THANGAL, S/O.SEYED MUHAMMED KOYA THANGAL, NALAKATH HOUSE, ANDROTH, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER PORTHUPURA SHEIKOYA HAJI, S/O.NALLAKOYA, AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANDROTH, U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP, PIN-682 551. 2. THE ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI. 3. THE COLLECTOR-CUM-DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, KAVARATTI, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP. 4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANDROTH, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP. 5. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (H.Q), SECRETARIAT, KAVARATTI. ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN FOR R2-5 R1 BY ADV.SRI.K.MOHANA KANNAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag.C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1862 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag.C.J. The only controversy in this matter seems to be with regard to the classification of persons who should get benefit under Exhibit P6. Whether it should be only those who are below the poverty line or all those persons who have to be evicted from the area to create an access to the back water facility. It is not in dispute that Exhibit P6 is the subject matter of challenge by the appellant herein in one Writ Petition. It is also not in dispute that for the implementation of Exhibit P6, several other Writ Petitions, W.P.(C).Nos. 18538, 27738 and 26169 of 2010 and W.P(C). No.1421 of 2011 are also filed by the persons, who claim to be the prospective beneficiaries of order at Exhibit P6. In that view of the matter, expressing a view in one way or other way on Exhibit P6 would be nothing, but deciding the genuineness or restrictions or expansion of benefits under Exhibit P6. Therefore, it would be just and proper for the appellants to move the learned Single W.A.1862/11 2 Judge to dispose of the Writ Petitions itself on merits at an early date, if possible, along with all other Writ Petitions, which relate to either implementation or challenge to Exhibit P6. With the above observations, we dispose of the Writ Appeals. Sd/- MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vgs /true copy/ PS TO JUDGE