IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2008 / 18TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20041 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SIVAN PILLAI, AGED 58, S/O. LATE THANKAPPAN NAIR, ILAMKOOLIYATTU HOUSE, KARIKODE DESOM, MULAMTHURUTHY VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA SMT.N.K.SHEEBA RESPONDENT: ---------------- MULAMTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MULAMTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 20041 OF 2008 J ==================== Dated this the 9th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge is against Ext.P5 decision of the respondent Panchayath. 2. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner approached this court by filing WP(C) No.6656/08 aggrieved by Ext.P2. That writ petition was disposed of directing that the matter be decided afresh with notice to the petitioner. It was accordingly that by Ext.P5, a fresh decision has been taken. By the impugned decision on the allegation that on account of the transportation of red soil by the petitioner, damage has been caused, he is called upon either to repair the road or to remit the equivalent amount. 3. In my view, if the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5, the course open to the petitioner is to challenge the said order by invoking the statutory remedy of appeal and I see no reason to hold that the said order is not an appealable one. Therefore, reserving liberty to the petitioner to pursue the matter before the appropriate authorities, writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp