IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29368 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. ULLAS VARGHESE, S/O.DANIEL VARGHESE AGED 37 YEARS, ULLAS VILLA, PUTHANAGADI PO VIA ANGADIPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 2. HANIMOL VARGHESE, W/O. ULLAS VARGHESE ULLAS VILLA, PUTHANAGADI PO VIA ANGADIPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. ANGADIPURAM GRAMAPANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SLP GRADE SECRETARY ANGADIPURAMGRAMA PANCHAYATH, MALAPPURAM. 2. SECRETARY, KERALA NADUVATHUL MUHAHIDIN ANGADIPURAM UNIT, ANGADIPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 3. STATE OF KERALA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATOR SECRETARAIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 29368 OF 2010 (U) ===================== Dated this the 24th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners submit that on the strength of a building permit, they commenced construction of a residential building in a plot of land belonging to them having an extent of 3 cents. According to the petitioners, soon thereafter, Ext.P5 stop memo was issued by the 1st respondent, allegedly at the instance of the 2nd respondent. On receipt of the stop memo, 1st petitioner filed Ext.P6 explanation, but however, there has not been any progress in the matter. This led to a stale mate in the construction activities and therefore the writ petition is filed. 2. Evidently therefore, at this stage, what is required is that the 1st respondent should consider the issue raised in Ext.P5 in the light of Ext.P6 explanation filed by the petitioner. This the 1st respondent shall do on the production of a copy of this judgment and at any rate within 2 weeks and with notice to the 2nd respondent also. It is made clear this Court has not expressed anything on the merits and the 1st respondent is free to decide the matter in accordance with law. WPC No. 29368/10 :2 : 3. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 1st respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp