IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2007 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1929 WA.No. 637 of 2007() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.20982/2006 Dated 25/01/2007 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER ------------------------------------- JOSHY VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, PALAKKUZHIYIL HOUSE, SOUTH MARADY (P.O.), MOOVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, MARADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MARADY. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MOOVATTUPUZHA. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R. MEERA. BY ADV. SRI.C.VARGHESE KURIAKOSE SRI.PRAVEEN.K.JOY THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J. ................................................................................... W.A. No. 637 OF 2007 ................................................................................... Dated this the 4th June, 2007 J U D G M E N T H.L. Dattu, C.J.: This appeal is filed challenging the judgment in W.P(C) 20982 of 2006 dated 25th January, 2007. 2. The learned single Judge, while disposing of the Writ Petition, had directed the Village Panchayat/respondent No.1, to consider Ext.P8 representation filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned single Judge, the petitioner is before us in this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the first respondent,viz., the Village Panchayat, on instruction, would submit that the Village Panchayat has already considered the representation of the petitioner and have passed appropriate orders . 4. In view of the subsequent developments, in our opinion, nothing survives in this Writ Appeal, for our consideration. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner/appellant to approach the appropriate forum, if he is of the opinion that W.A. No. 637 OF 2007 2 the order passed by the first respondent on his representation is arbitrary or illegal. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk