IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5891 of 2011(J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- RAISAL, S/O. MOOSA, AGED 24 YEARS, 'THAROTH THAZHE', THIRUMANA AMSOM, VILLIAPPALLY DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. BY ADVS. SRI.B.KRISHNAN, SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, VILLIAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VILLIAPPALLY-673 105. 2. THE VILLIAPPALLY PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, VILLIAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VILLIAPPALLY-673 105. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.5891 of 2011 ---------------------------- Dated 24th February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner was issued with Ext.P4 order. The first respondent issued Ext.P4 order to the petitioner directing him to restore the water channel running along the property covered as per Exts.P1 and P2. Feeling aggrieved by the same the petitioner has preferred statutory appeal through Ext.P5. Along with Ext.P5 the petitioner has moved Ext.P6 stay petition. Exts.P5 and P6 are still pending before the appellate authority. The petitioner apprehends coercive steps from the part of the first respondent in view of the specific directions contained in Ext.P4 requiring him to restore the water channel within seven days. As already noticed, though the petitioner has moved Ext.P6 stay petition for getting stay of Ext.P4 the stay petition has not so far been taken up for consideration by the appellate authority. 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 at this stage. 2. Obviously, feeling aggrieved by Ext.P4 order the petitioner has approached the appellate authority through Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 stay petition filed along with the same is still pending before the appellate authority. In view of the specific direction in Ext.P4 I am of the view that WP(C).No.5891/2011 2 the apprehension of the petitioner cannot be said to be unfounded. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 stay petition within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There will be a further direction requiring the parties to maintain status quo for a period of three weeks. It will also be open to the appellate authority to take up and pass orders on Ext.P5 appeal itself within the above stipulated time. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // true copy // P.S. to Judge