IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2011 / 10TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23749 of 2011(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SADASIVAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.GANGADHARAN, PALLIYIL VEEDU, ERATHUKULAKKADA, KALAYPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 3. TAHSILDAR, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. 4. DISTRICT POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM. SR GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23749 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- PHOTOCOPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE KULAKKADA PANCHAYAT EXT.P2- PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE APPLICATION TOGETHER WITH THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT SUBMITTED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXT.P3- PHTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION TO THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTARAKKARA EXT.P4- PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 4.8.11 OF THE RDO, KOLLAM EXT.P5- PHOTOCOPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER EXT.P6- PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER EXT.P7- PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER FORWARDED TO THE RDO, KOLLAM (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).23749/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 1st day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Ext.P4 is the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer permitting the petitioner to remove earth from the property mentioned therein, in order to enable the petitioner to start construction work of a commercial building. Accordingly, petitioner commenced the work and immediately thereafter, the Village Officer issued Ext.P5 prohibitory order. On being served with Ext.P5, petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation requesting for his intervention and for lifting the prohibitory order. Orders have not been passed on Ext.P6 as a result of which, petitioner is unable to continue the work and in the meantime, the period of Ext.P4 will expire on 3.9.2011. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 2. Going by the pleadings, the Revenue Divisional Officer, who has issued Ext.P4, is ceased of the proceedings arising out of Ext.P5 prohibitory order issued by the Village Officer. In such a situation, I direct that the Revenue Divisional Officer shall consider Ext.P6 representation filed by the petitioner objecting to W.P.(C).23749/11 2 Ext.P5 prohibitory order of the Village Officer and pass final orders with notice to the petitioner. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. Needless to say that eventually if an order favourable to the petitioner is passed and the period of Ext.P4 expires, it will be open to the petitioner to seek extension of Ext.P4 as well. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs