IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 4458 of 2011(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ERATTUPETTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ERATTUPETTA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR.P.M. ABDUL SAMAD. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, SRI.K.M.ANEESH. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. MRS.NASEEMA YUSUF, W/O.MOHAMMED YUSUF, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, NADAKKAL P.O., ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM- 686 124. 2. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU, SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 4458 of 2011(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT GIVEN TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO CONSTRUCT 1ST FLOOR. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE APPROVED PLAN TO CONSTRUCT 1ST FLOOR. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.A4/411/2011 DATED 09/01/2001. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE PERMIT GIVEN TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO CONSTRUCT GROUND FLOOR. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN TO THE TOWN PLANNER KOTTAYAM. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN I.A. NO.128/2011 IN APPEAL NO.100/2011. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 4458 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner panchayat is aggrieved by Ext.P8 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. It is an order passed in I.A.No.128/2011 in appeal No.100/2011. The said appeal has been preferred against Ext.P3 stop memo dated 19.1.2011 issued by the petitioner panchayat. As per Ext.P3, the first respondent herein was directed to stop the construction and also to explain why the building permit issued should not be cancelled. The Tribunal passed Ext.P8 ex parte order staying Ext.P3 order. The contention of the petitioner panchayat is that granting stay of Ext.P3 would enable the first respondent herein to go on with the construction. In fact, Ext.P3 stop memo was issued on the ground that the first respondent is effecting construction illegally and unlawfully and in violation of the approved plan. Therefore, granting stay of Ext.P3 till the disposal of the said appeal would cause prejudice to the petitioner panchayat, it is contended. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the W.P.(C) NO.4458/2011 2 learned Government Pleader. It is true that granting of stay of Ext.P3 would enable the first respondent herein to make further construction based on Ext.P1building permit which was sought to be cancelled by the petitioner herein. It is also to be noted that granting of stay of Ext.P8 would enable the petitioner herein to take further action based on Ext.P3. In view of the said position and also considering the fact that the appeal filed by the first respondent herein is still pending before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, this Writ Petition is disposed of as hereunder:- In case the petitioner files appropriate petition to modify or revoke Ext.P8 order within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be taken up by the Tribunal and appropriate orders shall be passed thereon within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of such a petition. It will also be open to the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal itself within the aforesaid time limit. Till appropriate orders are passed in terms of the directions in this judgment, the first respondent shall not effect any further construction on the strength of Ext.P1 building permit. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.4458/2011 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.4458/2011 4