IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 26TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 25311 of 2004(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, KARUVAYALIL KIZHAKKE PUTHEN VEEDU, KALANJOOR, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE SMT.NAJI LONAPPAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE SUB COLLECTOR, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ADOOR. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, ADOOR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K. SANIL KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. = = = = = = = = == = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 25311 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010. J U D G M E N T In connection with the cutting and removing of an Anjili tree from the purampoke land, proceedings were initiated by the third respondent against the petitioner, passing Ext.P2 order, which was subjected to challenge by filing an appeal before the second respondent. Being aggrieved by Ext.P3 order passed by the second respondent, petitioner preferred a revision before the first respondent. But since coercive proceedings were taken in the meanwhile, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 6667 of 2004 which culminated in Ext.P5 judgment, directing the first respondent to finalise the revision petition, simultaneously, passing orders staying the coercive steps till such time. Pursuant to Ext.P5, the first respondent passed Ext.P6 which is challenged in this writ petition. 2. The above writ petition was admitted on 24.8.2009, also granting an interim stay on condition that petitioner furnished bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. Learned Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents submits that the factual and legal position have been properly examined by the respondents concerned and that the impugned orders do WP(C) 25311/2004 2 not call for any interference. However, there is no representation for the petitioner. In the said circumstance, this Court does not propose to go into the merits of the writ petition and it is dismissed for default. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) KNC/-