IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37586 of 2010(W) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SAKTHI METALS,NANDIPULAM REP.BY MANAGING PARTNER, C.N.RAJEEVAN, AGED 49 YEARS,S/O.NARAYANAN, CHULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE,NANDIPULAM,THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY,VARANDARAPPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, P.O. VARANDARAPPILLY,THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680 303. 2. VARANDARAPPILY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, P.O. VARANDARAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN 680 303. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.37586 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The direction issued by the Secretary of Varandarappilly Grama Panchayat in Ext.P7 letter dated 15.12.2010 to the petitioner to stop running a quarry is under challenge in this writ petition. Under the provisions of Section 276(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, an appeal lies from the said direction to the Panchayat. The learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that Ext.P7 letter was sent on the directions of the President and therefore the order is liable to be set aside for the reason that it is one issued in violation of Section 185 B and section 236 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. In my opinion, even if the Secretary has acted on the dictates of the President of the Panchayat, that is a ground which can be put forward in the appeal which lies from Ext.P7. Under Section 276, after the appellate remedy is exhausted, the petitioner can also move the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions by way of a revision. The period of limitation prescribed in section 276 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act for filing an appeal has also not W.P.(C) No.37586 of 2010 2 expired. In such circumstances, as the petitioner has an effective meaningful remedy and the remedy is still open to him, I find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P7 in other appropriate proceedings. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.