IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2009 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 8049 of 2009(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- G.LEELA, T.C.7/184, NARAYANA SADANAM, KANJIRAMPARA, ARUVIKKARA VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL K.NARENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF MINING & GEOLOGY, DIRECTORATE OF MINING & GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 5. THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 6. K.VENUKUMAR, GENERAL SECRETARY, KERALA YOGEESWARA SANGAM, REG.NO.5/63, CHALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695036. MR.P.N.SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.8049 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 13th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Grievance in the writ petition is mainly against Ext.P11, an order passed by the 2 nd respondent on Ext.P9 stay petition filed by the 6 th respondent along with Ext.P8 appeal filed by him. 2. Facts of the case, briefly noticed, are that against Ext.P3 NOC granted by the 3 rd respondent in the petitioner's favour, the 6 th respondent filed Ext.P8 appeal and Ext.P9 stay petition under the provisions of the Land Conservency Act before the 2 nd respondent. It is considering the above stay petition that Ext.P11 order of stay was passed by the appellate authority, which is said to be without notice to the petitioner. The petitioner submits that on being served of Ext.P11, he filed Ext.P12 objections. But, however, so far, the appellate authority has not considered the matter in the light of Ext.P12. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P11. 3. From the facts, as noticed, Ext.P11 is only an exparte order of stay. Now that the petitioner has filed his objections to the WP(C) No.8049/2009 -2- matter, it is only appropriate that the appellate authority considers the matter with notice to the petitioner, which necessarily will include the issue of maintainability of the appeal, that the petitioner has raised in Ext.P12 also. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the 2 nd respondent shall consider Ext.P8 appeal itself, with notice to the parties as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg