IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 1101 of 2011(K) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- PARVATHI ANTHARJANAM, AGED 74 YEARS, W/O.LATE KRISHNAN NAMBUDIRIPAD KARUMALA ELLAM, KARUMALA P.O., BALUSSERRY VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. UNNIKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH EKAROOR P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-673 574. 2. THE SECRETARY, UNNIKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, EKAROOR P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 574. R1 R2 BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUDHISH, SMT.M.MANJU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.1101/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.A2756/07-08 DTD. 17.3.2008. P2:- COPY OF THE NOTICE AND STOP MEMO DTD. 13.5.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P3:- COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXT.P2 FILED BY THE PETITIONER DT.D 29.5.2009. P4:- COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION DTD. 3.3.2011 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.1101 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated 21st March, 2011 JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed mainly challenging Ext.P2. Ext.P2 is only a stop memo dated 13.5.2009. Taking up the contention that Ext.P2 is too vague and it would not be possible for any person to give an explanation on Ext.P2 on account of its vagueness, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. However, subsequent to the institution of this writ petition, the respondents have issued certain clarifications and thereupon, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 representation before the second respondent. In view of the subsequent developments, the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent submitted that the second respondent would consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 taking note of the explanation offered by the petitioner in Ext.P4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that subsequent to the institution of this writ petition the petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 explanation to Ext.P2 on obtaining certain clarifications. Evidently, the second respondent is competent to look into the issues raised as per Ext.P4. Therefore, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions WP(C).No.1101/2011 2 raised in this writ petition and also in Ext.P4, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P4 and pass orders thereon, in accordance with law, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS