IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2007 / 2ND SRAVANA 1929 WP(C).No. 22538 of 2007(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- P.MADHAVAN NAMBIAR, S/O.KUNCHU NAMBIAR, SOWPARNIKA, VETTOM P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRIC.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENTS: --------------------- THE SECRETARY, VETTOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VETTOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2007 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 22538 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of July, 2007 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P4. Ext.P4 is a notice issued calling upon the petitioner to demolish the portion constructed in violation of Section 220B of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Ext.P4 is dated 2.7.2007. Petitioner in the writ petition stated that petitioner had challenged Ext.P3. Petitioner had approached this court seeking to challenge Ext. P3 dated 31.5.2006 stating that number was not assigned to the building constructed by the petitioner as the construction is made in violation of Section 220B. This court by judgment in W.P.(C) No.17589 of 2006 disposed of the writ petition filed against Ext.P3 by directing the petitioner to prefer an appeal against Ext.P3 within one week from the date of receiving copy of the judgment. It was also directed that the demolition of the construction on the strength of Ext.P4 therein will be kept in abeyance for a period of five weeks. This judgment is dated 6.7.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not prefer any appeal pursuant to the judgment. WPC.22538/2007. 2 In fact in the writ petition there is no mention of the direction to prefer appeal. Now the petitioner challenges Ext.P4 notice directing demolition. 2. I do not think that I should extend the benefit of Article 226 as such in this case to the petitioner. It is open to the petitioner to prefer appeal against Ext.P4 as Ext.P4 itself is appealable. Without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb