IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 21080 of 2008(H) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ENIYACHALIL RASEEK, S/O. MOIDEEN, AGED 37, RESIDING AT PUTHOOR VATTOM, BALUSSERY AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, KAKKODI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KAKKODI.P.O, KOZHIKODE. 2. SHAKUNTALA, W/O.SRINIVASA ERADI, 'SRINILAYAM', P.O. KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SMT.T.RESMI DAMODARAN FOR R2 SRI.SUNNY MATHEW FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21080/2008 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF THE REGISTERED ASSIGNMENT DEED DATED 14.11.2007 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT. P2 : COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT No.BL-581/07-08 DATED 17.1.2008 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT. P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER DT.13.5.08 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P4 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXT. P5 : COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. 1ST RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT. R1(a) : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18.04.2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.21080 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner obtained Ext.P1 building permit from the 1 st respondent for constructing a residential building in his property. The work was directed to be stopped on the basis of a complaint filed by the 2 nd respondent on the ground of existence of a way on the eastern side of the property. At that time, the petitioner was abroad and he did not get any notice. Subsequently the permit was cancelled by Ext.P3 order. The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order. The petitioner submits that the petitioner never received any notice and he had no chance to object to the proposal to cancel the permit. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Panchayat disputing the contentions of the petitioner. 3. I am not inclined to go into the controversy since admittedly the petitioner had not been heard in the matter. Since the petitioner could not be served notice as he was abroad, W.P.(c)No.21080/08 2 it is only appropriate that the matter be reconsidered by the Panchayat after hearing the petitioner also. For that purpose, Ext.P3 is quashed. The 1 st respondent is directed to take a fresh decision after hearing the petitioner as well as the 2 nd respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, till fresh orders are passed, the petitioner shall not make any further construction. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.21080/08 3