IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 9680 of 2008(B) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SUSEELA, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O.CHATHU, 15/423, CHUVATHINKAL HOUSE, PALAYAPETTA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU ADV. GEORGE THOMAS.M. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY. 2. V.SIVANANDAN, 15/424, ANNAI ILLAM, PALAYAPETTA. P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) FOR R.1 ADV. T.C.SURESH MENON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 9680 of 2008(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION AGAINST THE PROVISIONAL ORDER FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. PW4-9693/06 DATED 14.5.2007 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NO. 216/07 PREFERRED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER/ EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2007 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATIONS DATED 1.3.2008 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No.9680 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 10th day of November, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that the 1st respondent is not taking fresh steps in the matter of demolishing of the 2nd respondent's building as directed in Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the Panchayat submits that pursuant to Ext.P6 fresh proceedings were initiated and an order directing demolition has been passed, against which the 2nd respondent has filed an appeal before the Tribunal and obtained a stay. That being so, the remedy of the petitioner lies elsewhere. Therefore, without prejudice to the other remedies of the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs