IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 11TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26355 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHINE K.B., KURUMULLANIYIL, KIZHAKKUMPADAM, UDUMPANNOOR, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENT: ------------- UDUMPANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, UDUMPANNOOR P.O., IDUKKI. BY S.C. MR. RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 26355 OF 2008 K = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of September 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P3. He was running a poultry farm. As he had not obtained licence from the respondent Panchayat, the Panchayat took steps resulting in Ext. P1 notice. At that stage, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court as W.P.(C) No. 23229/08. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext. P2 judgment directing that further proceedings be deferred till 25.8.2008. Such an order was passed taking into account the fact that a revision filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions was coming up for orders on 21.8.2008. Counsel now submits that on 21.8.2008 the Secretary of the Panchayat entered appearance before the Tribunal and sought time and that thereupon, the case was posted to 16.9.2008. It is stated that in the meanwhile on the ground that this Court had directed that the proceedings pursuant to Ext. P1 be deferred only W.P.(C) No. 26355 OF 2008 -2- upto 25.8.2008 fresh notice has been issued by the Panchayat proposing to auction the shed of the petitioner on 2.9.2008. It is aggrieved by this notice, produced as Ext. P3, this writ petition is filed. 2. Petitioner submits that he has already liquidated the entire stock of chicken and that there is absolutely no stock to be sold. It is also his case that the matter is now pending before the Tribunal and that the case was adjourned at the request of the Secretary of the Panchayat. The request now made is that until orders are passed either way, coercive action as proposed to be taken in Ext. P3 may be deferred. 3. I have heard the counsel for the Panchayat. Evidently the justification of the Panchayat is that this Court had only directed the proceedings to be deferred till 25.8.2008 and therefore the Panchayat cannot be faulted for what it has done. But still having regard to the fact that the petitioner has already liquidated his stock and it is only the shed that is remaining, I do not think that any harm will be caused to the Panchayat even if coercive action as proposed to be taken by Ext. P3 is deferred for a period of 8 weeks W.P.(C) No. 26355 OF 2008 -3- from today so that the petitioner will have a chance to seek and obtain appropriate orders from the Tribunal which is seized of the matter. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing that further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P3 be deferred for a period of 8 weeks from today. It is made clear that in the event of the petitioner does not succeed in his endeavour it will be open to the Panchayat to continue the proceedings. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-