IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 22898 of 2007(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ VEEGA HOLIDAYS & PARKS (P) LTD., PALLIKKARA, KUMARAPURAM PO, COCHIN-683 565, REP. BY ITS MANAGER (ADMN) MR. RAVIKUMAR .M.A. BY ADV. SRI.V.B.HARI NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. KUNNATHUNADU PANCHAYATH REP.BY ITS SECRETARY KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. DR. SHAJAHAN YOUSAF,ETTICAL HOUSE, CHUTTUPADUKARA, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN. R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE SC, PANCHAYATH. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP.(C) NO.22898/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE PROPERTY. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE EXISTING RETAINING WALL AND THE EXCAVATED PORTION OF THE LAND. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE TH1 IST AND 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.689/2007. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 19.7.07. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE SHOWING THE EXCAVATION WORK NOW GOING ON. EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R3(a):- COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE EXTEND OF EARTH REMOVED FROM THE PROPERTY OF THIS DEPONENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 22898 OF 2007-A ----------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 7th January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who is conducting an amusement park, challenges Ext.P6 resolution mainly on the ground that the resolution was passed by the Panchayath. My attention was drawn by Mr.P.K.Vijayamohanan, learned counsel for the third respondent and Sri. Paul K.Varghese, Standing Counsel for the Panchayath to the full text of Ext.P6 which would show that Sri. M.A.Ravikumar, Manager(Administration) of the petitioner was actually heard before Ext.P6 was passed. Sri. Harinarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier direction of this Court that site inspection should be conducted and views from other concerned authority should be obtained has not been complied with. The above complaint also does not appear to be correct since in Ext.P6 itself it is stated that a site inspection was conducted and that the report of the Assistant Engineer of the Local Self Government Department was relied on. The main ground of challenge against Ext.P6 fails and the WP(C)No.22898/2007. -2- writ petition will stand dismissed. However, dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in the way of the first respondent passing appropriate orders on Ext.P3 which is seen pending before the first respondent. The first respondent will pass orders on Ext.P3 only after hearing the third respondents also. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) ks. WP(C)No.22898/2007. -3-