IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 8091 of 2009(F) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ MANOJ P. NJARAMPILLY HOUSE KURICHILAKODE, KODANAD P.O. KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA 3. P.A.JOSEPH, S/O.OUSEPH, PALLICKAL HOUSE KURICHILAKODE,KODANAD P.O. KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH SRI.V.M.KURIAN FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 8091 OF 2009 (F) ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard counsel for the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. 2. The grievance of the writ petitioner is mainly regarding Ext.P5 order of stay passed by the 1st respondent. 3. The facts of the case show that the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P4 no objection certificate enabling the petitioner to obtain licence from the Panchayat for starting his brick manufacturing unit. 4. It would appear that against Ext.P4 no objection, the 3rd respondent filed an appeal before the 1st respondent. In the appeal, an ex parte order of stay was passed by the 1st respondent, which is Ext.P5. Aggrieved by Ext.P5, petitioner has filed Ext.P6 application before the 1st respondent seeking to vacate the stay. Still orders were not passed, and as a result of the stay order, he is not in a position to carry on the business even after obtaining licence from the Panchayat. It is complaining of this situation, the writ petition has been filed. 5. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent has filed a statutory appeal before the 1st respondent and the fate of the licence granted by the Panchayat will depend upon the outcome of the appeal. WPC 8091/09 :2 : 6. In view of the above circumstances, I feel it is only appropriate that the appeal itself is disposed of so that the dispute can be given a quietus. 7. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent, in which Ext.P5 stay order was passed. Orders as above, shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment and shall be with notice to the 3rd respondent. 8. Counsel for the petitioner complains that the petitioner has not so far been furnished a copy of the appeal. In view of the above, it is also directed that on the production of a copy of this judgment, the 1st respondent shall ensure that the petitioner is served a copy of the appeal also. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp