IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 13TH MAY 2010 / 23RD VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14840 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MOHAMMED,S/O.UMMER, THARIPPALAPARAMBIL HOUSE,KARASSERY P.O.,673602., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MS.T.V.NEEMA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KARASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KARASSERY,KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ============================= W.P.(C).No.14840 of 2010 =============================== Dated this the 13th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only grievance now pressed before this Court is for a direction to be given to the first respondent to consider and finalise Ext.P3, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 2. The sequence of events shows that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C).No.10625 of 2010, apprehending demolition of the construction made by the petitioner, allegedly for deviating from the plan approved by the Panchayath; which led to Ext.P2 judgment directing the respondent Panchayath to consider Exts.P2 and P3 mentioned therein (in the light of Ext.P4 objection filed therein) simultaneously making clear that till the proceedings were finalised as above, no demolition was to be effected in the meanwhile. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, Ext.P5 communication has been issued by the Panchayath on 20.4.2010, which is stated as not in conformity with Ext.P2 judgment and hence is subjected to challenge. W.P.(C).No.14840 of 2010 ::2:: 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the second respondent as well. 4. Obviously the direction contained in Ext.P2 judgment is with regard to the demolition of the construction; whereas the the Panchayath, as per Ext.P5, has only to stop further construction and that's all. Ext.P5, in other words, does not contain anything with regard to demolition. 5. Taking note of the limited prayer now pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that Ext.P3 representation already preferred before the first respondent is to be considered and finalised, this Court does not find it necessary to issue any separate notice to the first respondent for the time being, as no 'fact adjudication' is involved. The first respondent is directed to consider Ext.P3 and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce the copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for taking further steps. Writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge. bkn/-