IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2007 / 22ND ASHADHA 1929 WP(C).No. 18546 of 2004(G) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------ PEZHUNGATTIL ALI, S/O. ISMAIL, BACKER, AREEKODE POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID SRI.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER SRI.R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM SRI.T.P.SAJID (THALASSERY) RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. AREEKODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT OFFICE, AREEKODE. 2. PRESIDENT, AREEKODE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, PANCHAYAT OFFICE, POST AREEKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON FOR RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO: 18546/2004 G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE NO. A3. 278/04,D T. 15/3/2004 OF THE R1. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE REPLY BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R1. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. B4/ 455/04 DT. 10/6/2004 TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R1A. COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 26/12/97 BY THE PETITIONER TO THIS RESPONDENT. EXT.R1B. COPY OF THE DECISION NO. IV(6) DT. 29/4/04 OF THE AREACODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT BOARD. True copy tga THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.18546 OF 2004 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of July, 2007 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P3 notice issued by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat requiring the petitioner to vacate from a temporary shed. The counter affidavit filed and the materials placed therewith categorically show that the petitioner himself had agreed to vacate. This is the effect of Ext.R1(a). There is no reply affidavit on record. It is the categoric stand of the Grama Panchayat that on the basis of the decision as reflected in Ext.R1(b), the petitioner has been notified as per Ext.P3 notice to vacate. Under such circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned action or issue any direction as sought for. In the result, the writ petition fails. The same is dismissed accordingly. No costs. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.