IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2008 / 16TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19878 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- DR.M.C.USHA KUMARI, RESIDING AT PRINCIPAL'S BUNGLOW, VADAVATHOOR P.O KOTTAYAM - 10. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. PRABHAKARAN PILLAI, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT KERALA VILAS PULAMAN P.O. KOTTARAKKARA. 2. SARASWATHI AMMA, W/O.PRABHAKARANPILLAI RESIDING AT KERALA VILAS, PULAMAN P.O., KOTTARAKKARA. 3. THE MYLOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP MOHAN FOR R3 SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE FOR R3 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.19878/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.14.1.04 ISSUED BY THE RDO, KOLLAM TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 20.8.2004 SENT TO THE RDO, KOLLAM BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF the JUDGEMENT DTD.26.9.07 IN WPC 27984/07 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD 18.10.07 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER FROM THE PART OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 18.1.08. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 19878 OF 2008 N ==================== Dated this the 7th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Heard both sides. 2. The complaint of the petitioner is that the respondents 1 and 2 are undertaking construction without a permit and that too over a structure which is already ordered to be demolished vide Exts. P1 and P2. It is seen that complaining of this, the petitioner has already approached the 3rd respondent Panchayat by filing Exts. P4 and P5 and that orders on these petitions have not been passed so far. 3. Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the present constructions are undertaken on the strength of valid permit. 4. Now that the matter is pending consideration of the Panchayat in the aforesaid representations filed by the petitioner, I do not think it is necessary for this court to enter into the merits of the controversy atleast at this stage. In my view, what is required to be done is that the Panchayat should take a decision on Exts. P4 and P5 with notice to the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2. This the Panchayat shall do, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 2 weeks of production of a WPC 19878/08 :2 : copy of this judgment. It is directed that in the meanwhile, respondents 1 and 2 shall not proceed with the construction and further construction will depend upon the decision to be taken by the Panchayat on Exts. P4 and P5. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the Panchayat for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp