IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20847 of 2010(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JOSEPH, S/O. CHACKO, MOOLAEKALAM HOUSE, CHEERANCHIRA POST, VEROOR MURI, CHETHIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, SRI.P.M.JOSEPH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM-686 002. 3. GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY-686 101. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, CHETHIPPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY-686 101. 6. MOLLYKUTTY JOSEPH, W/O. JOSEPH, KADAMTHODE HOUSE, CHEERANCHIRA POST, VEROOR MURI, CHETHIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY-686 106. 7. GIGIMOLE SIBYCHEN, W/O. SIBYCHEN, KADAMTHODE HOUSE, CHEERANCHIRA POST, VEROOR MURI, CHETHIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY-686 106. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 20847 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 permit issued by the Tahsildar, Changanachery, to the respondents 6 & 7 for removing soil for the purpose of construction of a house. Petitioner challenges the same on various grounds. 2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. Ext.P1 was issued on 05.12.2008. Respondents 6 & 7 filed W.P.(C) No. 28758/2009 seeking police protection for removal of soil as per Ext.P1 permit and by Ext.P2 judgment, this court granted police protection also. In Ext.P2, the petitioner was also a party. Therefore latest the petitioner would have become aware of the existence of Ext.P1 order when that writ petition was filed and notice was received by him. Ext.P2 judgment is dated 05.11.2009. Therefore the petitioner was aware of Ext.P1 prior to 5.11.2009. The W.P.(C)No. 20847 of 2010 -2- explanation now offered for the long delay in challenging Ext. P1 is that against Ext.P2 a review petition is filed and is pending. Petitioner has no case that, the review petition has been admitted and a stay has been granted. That being so, I do not find any merit in the explanation for the delay also. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay and laches. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/