IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 23764 of 2008(D) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- PADMAKSHI, W/O.LATE PADMANABHAN, NOORUPARAYIL HOUSE, MUTTAR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. MUTTAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MUTTAR.P.O, ALAPPUZHA. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SECRETARY, MUTTAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MUTTAR.P.O, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR FOR R1,2 SRI.MANU GOVIND FOR R1,2 SRI.PRAMOD DAS LOHYA FOR R1,2 SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR FOR R3,4 SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN FOR R3,4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.23764/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a licensee of toddy shop No.46 of Kuttanad Excise Range of Alappuzha Excise Division. It is stated that by submitting Ext.P4, petitioner requested the respondent Panchayat to assign building number in respect of a temporary shed in order to locate a toddy shop during the current year. It is stated that on receipt of Ext.P4, Panchayat noticed three defects on the application itself and returned a copy of the application to the petitioner. The application was submitted on 26.4.2008 and the endorsement made on the application is dated 26.5.2008. According to the petitioner, he resubmitted an an application curing the defects, there was no progress. Therefore this writ petition has been filed. WP(c).No. 23764/2008 2 2. On instruction, the counsel for the Panchayat informs that subsequent to the filing of the application by the petitioner, taking into account the complaints received by the Panchayat, the Panchayat in the meeting held on 13.6.2008 passed a resolution not to number the building in question. 3. Counsel for the petitioner contends that she has not been communicated anything about the resolution of 13.6.2008. 4. Now that the Panchayat has resolved not to assign number to the building in question, the remedy available to the petitioner is to pursue the matter against the resolution dated 13.6.2008. However, taking into account the complaint that the petitioner has not been communicated the decision on 13.6.2008 referred to above, it is directed that on the production of a copy of this judgment, a copy of the resolution will be made available to the petitioner, so that he can pursue the matter before the appropriate authority. WP(c).No. 23764/2008 3 Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC vi JUDGE