IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23370 of 2009(M) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. MUHAMMED HAJI, EDAKOTH MEETHAL,VELLIPARAMBA,KOZHIKODE. 2. ABDUL SAMAD, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. MR.K.SANEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, PERUVAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, POST POOVATTE PARAMBA,KOZHIKODE. 2. P.NAJEEB, KODASSERRY THAZHAM,PERUVAYAL, KUTTIKATTOOR,KOZHIKODE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.23370 of 2009-M = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner was carrying out a construction. The panchayat authorities concluded that the said activity included certain illegal constructions. Orders were issued to pull down that portion. Petitioner filed an appeal against that before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The Tribunal granted an interim order staying the demolition order. Obviously, the petitioner could not have carried on with the construction thereafter, on the strength of that stay order of the Tribunal. 2.At the instance of the private respondents, the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions required the DDP, Kozhikode to conduct an inspection and ensure that there is no further WP(C)23370/09 -: 2 :- construction. That was a reasonable way of looking at the interim order issued by the Tribunal. 3.Later, the Tribunal allowed the petitioner's appeal against the demolition order as per Ext.P11 which is essentially a technical order taking the view that due process was not followed in ordering demolition. All that was said was that the demolition order has been issued on proceedings contrary to the statutory provisions. It was, therefore, that the Tribunal had directed the panchayat authority to initiate proceedings afresh. 4.The aforesaid situation cannot be treated as one whereby the Tribunal has given its seal of approval to the construction activity being carried on by the petitioner. The Tribunal did not enter a finding that the construction was in terms of the plan, permit and the rules. 5.Obviously, therefore, the petitioner could not WP(C)23370/09 -: 3 :- have carried on with the construction but had to wait for the decision of the panchayat. In this context, adverting to Exts.P9 and P10, all that the learned Ombudsman has done is to ensure that there is no further construction activity on the strength of the interlocutory order issued by the Tribunal. The issuance of a final order by the Tribunal does not, in any manner, improve the case in favour of the petitioner. 6.Ends of justice do not require the visitorial jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with Exts.P9 and P10 under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/280809