IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5508 of 2011(K) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- C.PRASAD, HOUSE NO.155/E 340, LINK HORIZON, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KUNDARA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, KUNDARA P.O., PIN 691601, KUNDAR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. BIJU JOHN, NEETHOOSE, KUNDARA, PIN 691601, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. THE KUNDARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KUNDARA P.O., PIN 691601, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.5508 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is the absolute owner in possession of shop room Nos.241 to 244 in Ward No.VIII of Kundara Grama Panchayath filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P7 order issued by the first respondent, the Secretary of the said Grama panchayath. Essentially, Ext.P7 is an order passed under Section 235W(3) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act (for short 'the Act') requiring the petitioner to demolish the construction effected in the aforesaid property. It also carries a warning to the effect that in case of his failure to demolish the construction in terms of the directions, it would be demolished by the panchayath. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of the provisions under Section 276(4) of the Act, 30 days' time is available for preferring an appeal against Ext.P7 order passed by the first respondent in terms of Section 276(6) of the Act. Therefore, the direction in Ext.P7 to demolish the construction effected in the aforesaid property within 15 days of the order is unsustainable, it is contended. In view of the order I propose to pass in this Writ Petition I do W.P.(C) NO.5508/2011 2 not think it necessary to issue notice to the respondents at this stage. 2. As already noticed hereinbefore, Ext.P7 is an order passed under Section 235W(3) of the Act and the same is appealable in terms of provisions under Section 276(4) of the Act. As per Section 276(6) of the Act, a period of 30 days is available for preferring an appeal against the order passed by invoking the power under Section 235W of the Act. Ext.P7 is dated 31.1.2011 and the same was served on the petitioner only on 4.2.2011. At any rate, the period for preferring the appeal would expire only on 3.3.2011. In view of the said position obtained in this case, without prejudice to the rights of the to prefer an appeal against Ext.P7 in terms of Section 276(4) of the Act, this Writ Petition is disposed of as hereunder: Considering the fact that the period for preferring the appeal would expire only on 3.3.2011, there will be a direction to the respondents not to effect any coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P7 till 13.3.2011, so as to enable the petitioner to prefer an appeal, if he is advised to do so, within the statutorily prescribed period. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.5508/2011 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.5508/2011 4