IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2009 / 23RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 22457 of 2008(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- LALAN , S/O.YOHANNAN, AGED 50 YEARS, KALEECKAL BUNGLOW, MUKKOODU, KOLLAM BY ADV. MR.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) MR.P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ THE KUNDARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH KUNDARA, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY BY ADV. MR.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 22457/2008-W APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25/11/2006 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE POSTAL COVER OF THE LETTER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 08/01/2007. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15/07/2008. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.19061/RD 2/08/LSD DATED 17/03/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(A): COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 15/11/2006. EXT.R1(B): COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13/09/2007 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.R1(C): COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.22457 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner constructed a building. Taking the stand that it is in violation of Section 220(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the first respondent Panchayat has proceeded to take action against the petitioner. This is impugned on the premise that the petitioner is entitled to have a building number. When counter affidavit is placed on record, by reply affidavit, the petitioner further pleads that the road in question is not one to which Section 220(b) of the Act applies. Particular reference is made to the decision reported in Soman Pillai v. Mavelikkara- Thamarakkulam Grama Panchayat [2008(4) KLT 753]. Under such circumstances and because the documents produced as Exts.R1(a) and R1(b) are not those issued to the petitioner, it is suggested by the learned counsel for the Panchayat that any fresh request of the petitioner for numbering the building and any statement by him that the building does not have to comply with Section 220(b) of the Act would be considered and decision WPC.22457/08 Page numbers taken de novo. This is recorded and it is ordered that the impugned decision, in so far as it is against the petitioner, would not be enforced until a decision is taken as aforesaid provided the petitioner makes a written request within a period of three weeks from now. The writ petition is ordered accordingly, leaving open all other questions. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.15/7.