IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 3251 of 2007(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.SAIRANDRI, WIFE OF LATE APPUKUTTAN, KUNNATHUKONATHU VEEDU, CHEMPAZHANTHI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.L.KRISHNAMOORTHY SRI.K.LAKSHMINARAYANAN SMT.SATHYA SHREEPRIYA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE POTHENCODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, POTHENCODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. BABU, KANJIRAM VILAKOM, KALLIDAKKAD, SHANTHIPURAM, AIYROORPARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN R1 SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.G.BIJU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,J ========================= W.P.(C).No.3251 of 2007 ========================== Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT As directed, the petitioner has made available a copy of the judgment in O.S.No.1673/2004. This judgment only shows that a suit filed by the petitioner's daughter arraying the petitioner and another person as defendants seeking injunction both prohibitory and mandatory, against the petitioner and the other defendants was dismissed by the court below. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the Director of Panchayat had issued an order directing the Secretary of Panchayat to take steps for demolishing certain constructions put up by the third respondent, no action so far been taken by the Panchayat for implementation of the direction given by the Director of Panchayat. Adv.Sri. Madhu Radhakrishnan, counsel for the third respondent submits that even prior to O.S.1673/2004, the writ petitioner had filed a suit and in that suit, the prayer was that steps may be taken by the Panchayat for demolishing the constructions. That suit was withdrawn by the petitioner herself on the basis that action had already been taken for demolishing the constructions. W.P.(C).No.3251./2007 2 Adv.Sri.M.Rajagopalan Nair, counsel for the Panchayat submits that till now the construction has not been removed in compliance with the direction of the Director of Panchayat. I record the above submission. I am at a loss to understand why the Panchayat has not implemented the directions issued by the Head of the Department namely the Director so far. Under these circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition directing the first respondent to take appropriate action for immediate demolition of the constructions in question by issuing notice to third respondent and finalise the action at the earliest and at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE dvs