IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4011 of 2010(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.G.MICHEAL,S/O.T.X.GEORGE,THOTTUKADAVIL HOUSE,CHERIYAKADAVU,KAN NAMALI.P.O, KOCHI-682 008. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURIKAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. WIRELESS-TT INFO SERVICES LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE AT 5-9-62,5TH FLOOR,KHAN LATHEEF KHAN ESTATE, KLK ESTATE, FATEH MAIDAN ROAD,HYDERABAD 500001 AND CIRCLE OFFICE AT J & CO CHAMBERS, MANIMALA ROAD,EDAPALLY,COCHIN-24,THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR.SUDEVAN.V.D. 2. CHELLANAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH(SPECIAL GRADE) REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,KANNAMALI.PO,KOCHI-682 008. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.4011 of 2010 (B) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that the 2 nd respondent had issued a building permit to the 1 st respondent which was cancelled by the 2 nd respondent later. Against the said order the 1 st respondent filed an appeal to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, and the Tribunal stayed the order of cancellation. According to the petitioner, on the strength of the interim order of stay, the 1 st respondent is proceeding with construction work. 2. It is stated that the petitioner has sought variation of the interim order by filing an appropriate application before the Tribunal, and complaining of delay in considering the application for variation and against the continuance of the work by the 1 st respondent, the writ petition is filed. It is reported that the application for variation is posted to 16/02/2010. 3. As already seen, the Tribunal is seized of the issue. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the interim order passed by the WP(C) No.4011/2010 -2- Tribunal, the right course to be adopted by the petitioner is to seek variation of the interim order. That also the petitioner has done, and the Tribunal has posted the matter to 16/02/2010, which is only 8 days from today. Therefore, at this stage, I do not think it necessary for this Court to entertain the writ petition and leaving it open to the petitioner to seek orders on Ext.P5 when the matter is heard on 16/02/2010. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the Tribunal for information. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg