IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5560 of 2011(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ZEENATH.P.S,W/O.A.M.UMMER, AANATT VEEDU, KARAKULAM KARA,VILANGU.P.O,EDATHALA. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KIZHAKKAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,KIZHAKKAMBALAM,PIN-633562. 2. SECRETARY,KIZHAKKAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT KIZHAKKAMBALAM,PIN-633562. 3. THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE,KIZHAKKAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,KIZHAKKAMBALAM,PIN-633562. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.5560 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is running a metal crusher unit by name 'Sajeer Granites in Sy.No.628/3 of KizhakkambalamVillage. It is contended that the petitioner has been running the said unit from 1993 onwards with all requisite permits and permissions. Ext.P1 stop memo dated 1.6.2010 was served on the petitioner in the meanwhile. On receipt of Ext.P1, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 before the second respondent stating that he had been conducting the said unit since 1993 with all requisite permits and permissions. In short, the prayer in Ext.P2 is to revoke the decision in Ext.P1. Obviously, Ext.P1 is an order passed under Section 233 A of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act (for short 'the Act'). It is appealable in terms of Section 276(1) of the Act. In fact, availing the said appellate remedy, the petitioner has already approached the third respondent through Ext.P3 dated 31.1.2011. It is still pending. This Writ Petition has been filed mainly with the prayer to direct the third respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 expeditiously. W.P.(C) NO.5560/2011 2 2. In view of the order I propose to pass in this Writ Petition I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the respondents. Obviously, Ext.P1 is an appealable order in terms of the provisions under Section 276 (1) of the Act. The petitioner has already preferred Ext.P3 appeal against Ext.P1 before the third respondent. Ext.P3 has to be construed as an appeal against Ext.P1 under Section 276(1) of the Act. Therefore, the third respondent is bound to consider the same and pass orders thereon. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 appeal expeditiously within the time stipulated under Section 276(3) of the Act. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.5560/2011 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.5560/2011 4