IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 8025 of 2009(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- STONAGE TOURIST COMPLEX CHERUTHONI, IDUKKI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, PARATHODE ANTONY. BY ADV. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, VAZHATHOPE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THADIAMPADU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.8025 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 1st day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a firm who wants to construct a building. Permit has been issued by the Panchayat. However, apparently based on the information received from the Town Planner to the effect that the proposed construction is in a construction free zone, the Panchayat has taken proceedings to cancel the permit. But the Panchayat themselves are of opinion that the area in question is a commercial zone and there are several commercial constructions in that area. In the above circumstances, the Panchayat themselves have forwarded Exts.P8 and P12 resolutions to the Government seeking reconsideration of the matter. The petitioner has also filed Ext.P13 representation before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner now seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P8, 12 and P13 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and all concerned. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the 1st respondent as also the learned Government Pleader. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of opinion that the 2nd respondent should address himself to the issue involved. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 2nd w.p.c.8025/09 2 respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P8, P12 and P13 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the 1st respondent and any other person, if involved, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall be permitted to continue construction at their own risk and if ultimately they lose their case, they would be liable to demolish the same. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.8025/09 3 S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.8025 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 24th day of March, 2009 O R D E R Learned Government Pleader shall get instructions from the 2nd respondent as to why the 2nd respondent cannot take a decision on Exts.P8 and P12 resolutions and Ext.P13 representation of the petitioner. Post on 1.4.2009. sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE w.p.c.8025/09 4