IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2007 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1928 WP(C).No. 7579 of 2007(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ VINOD, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, VISHNU VIHAR, THAZHUTHALA, KOTTIYAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.NOOR MUHAMMED SRI.C.K.PRASAD SRI.T.K.KUNJUMON RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ADICHANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. MASS CABLE VISION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MYLAKKAD, KOLLAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. .......................................................... W.P.(C) No.7579 OF 2007 ........................................................... DATED THIS THE 7TH MARCH, 2007 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 terms and conditions which he describes as an application for permission to draw cables through Panchayat roads. He submits that his proposal was not accepted by the Panchayat which in turn granted permission to the 2nd respondent for drawal of cables through roads. The action of the Panchayat, he now contends, is violative of Section 220(a) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. 2. I do not propose to go into the merits of the matter. The petitioner is permitted to submit a proper representation before the Panchayat in continuation of Ext.P2, arraying the 2nd respondent also as a party. If the Panchayat receives such a representation within one week of the petitioner receiving copy of this judgment, the Panchayat will consider that representation with notice to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and take a decision. Decision as directed above will be taken by the Panchayat within two weeks of receiving the representation. tgl (PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) WP(C)N0.7579 OF 2007 -2-