IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1933 WA.No. 1684 of 2011() ----------------------------- APPELLANT(S): ---------------------- PAULSON PAUL, VETTIYANKAL HOUSE, KALOOR.P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM-686 668. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. MAYA SAJEEV, W/O.SAJEEV, AGED 35, MATTANAYIL HOUSE, PANIPRA.P.O., KOTTAPADY, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN-686 692. 2. THE SECRETARY, AYAVANA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, AYAVANA.P.O., PIN-686 676. 3. THE AYAVANA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AYAVANA.P.O., PIN-686 676. R1 BY ADV.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR R2 & R3 BY ADV.SRI.M.C.CHERIYAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag.C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1684 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14h day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag.C.J. The first respondent herein approached the learned Single Judge challenging Exhibit P4 order issued by the concerned Grama Panchayat alleging that the same came to be issued at the instance of one Smt.Elsy Antony with whom a civil suit being contested by the first respondent herein. 2. The impugned order before us is an interim order of the learned Single Judge staying all further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P4. This would mean, the first respondent is permitted to proceed with the construction of the so called veneer industry, but the operation of the unit shall be commenced only after obtaining permission from the Court where the Writ Petition is pending. When the learned Single Judge has safeguarded the interest of the appellant herein and if the first respondent is permitted to put up a construction of industry at her risk, ultimately she may not be able to even claim any equity if the WA.1684/11 2 Court finds that there was no justification in the claim of the first respondent/writ petitioner. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that nothing warrants interference with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, , JUDGE vgs