IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 27309 of 2008(A) PETITIONER(S): M.M. MATHEW, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. MATHEW, MANAPURATHU HOUSE, THIRUVAMBADI.P.O, THIRUVAMBADI VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.D.SHAJAN RESPONDENT(S): 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KODUVALLY BLOCK PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KODUVALLY.P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. THE SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, THIRUVAMBADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THIRUVAMBADI AMSOM DESOM, THIRUVAMBADI.P.O, THIRUVAMBADI VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. JOSE, S/O. THOMMAN, CONTRACTOR, KOLAKATTU HOUSE, VELAMKODU.P.O, KODENCHERY AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 5. JOHNY EAPPEN, S/O. EAPPEN, CONVENOR, ROAD COMMITTEE, RESIDING AT KULAVATTATHIL HOUSE, THIRUVAMBADI.P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 6. ROSAMMA MATHEW, AGED 55, W/O. MATHEW, KALLUKULANGARA HOUSE, THIRUVAMBADI AMSOM, DESOM, THIRUVAMBADI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FOR R3 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 27309/2008. ------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT DT. 8-12-2006. EXT.P2 RECEIPT DT. 10-7-2008. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY. EXT.P4 JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO. 13705/2007. EXT.P5 REPRESENTATION DT. 16-8-2008. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 27309 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 6th October, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner's allegation in this writ petition is that without complying with the directions in Ext. P4 judgment, the 3rd respondent is proceeding with the construction of a road allegedly through the petitioner's property, which was the subject matter of Ext. P4 judgment. Learned counsel for the Panchayat submits that pursuant to Ext. P4 judgment, a notice for hearing was issued to the petitioner by registered post, which was not accepted by the petitioner. An order has also been passed which has also been sent to the petitioner by registered post, which also was returned unclaimed. In such circumstances, I do not think that the petitioner can now maintain this writ petition on the allegations raised therein. It is for the petitioner to seek his remedies against the order now passed by the Panchayat. The learned counsel for the Panchayat shall hand over a copy of the order to the learned counsel for the petitioner to enable the petitioner to take further proceedings in the matter. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/