IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2009 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 8655 of 2009(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GEORGE MAMPILLY, S/O.KURIAPPAN, PROPRIETOR, `THE GROUP', 2ND FLOOR, KALOOR TOWERS, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017. BY ADV. SRI.MANU ROY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SECRETARY, THRIKKAKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 030. ADV.S.SHANAVAS KHAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.8655 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 27th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be the builder of a building which was sought to be proceeded against for demolition under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. Notice in this regard was issued to one Mr.Mirza Aleem, who is stated to be the owner of the property. The petitioner challenged that notice by filing an appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, in which, by Ext.P4 order, the Tribunal set aside the order and directed the Secretary of the Panchayat to initiate fresh proper proceedings under Section 235W of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, without any unnecessary delay, if there are any reasons for doing so. The petitioner now submits that in spite of the above, the Panchayat is now intending to proceed again without notice to the petitioner in spite of the fact that Ext.P4 order was passed in the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “(I) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other appropriate Writ, Order or direction directing the respondent to issue notice to petitioner and to hear him before taking any action in compliance of Ext.P4 Order. (II) Issue such other writ, appropriate Order or Direction as this Hon'ble Court deem fit to the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Panchayat submits that the Panchayat has not initiated 2 fresh proceedings as directed in Ext.P4 yet. The counsel for the Panchayat submits that earlier some of the residents of the Panchayat had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.34617/2008, in which the submission of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat that if any demolition is actually undertaken by the Panchayat that would only be after issuing notice to all affected parties and hearing them, was recorded. 3. I have heard both sides. 4. In so far as it is on the appeal of the petitioner that Ext.P4 order has been passed, it is only appropriate that the Panchayat hears the petitioner also, if the Panchayat intends to take any fresh proceedings as directed in Ext.P4 order. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Panchayat to issue a notice and afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner also, if and when the Panchayat decides to initiate further proceedings as directed in Ext.P4, taking into account the judgment in W.P.(C).No. 34617/2008 also. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge