IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 W.P.(C).No. 23494 of 2008(V) PETITIONERS: 1. RUGMINI AMMA, W/O. BALASHNAN NAIR, PONNOTH VEEDU, VELLOOR AMSOM DESOM, ATHOLI P.O., QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE. 2. MEENAKSHI AMMA, W/O. MADHAVAN NAIR, PONNOTH VEEDU, VELLOOR AMSOM DESOM, ATHOLI P.O., QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.V.SIVASWAMY SRI.V.SIVASWAMY SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SMT.S.AMINA RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. ATHOLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ATHOLI 2. GOKULDAS. C.K, S/O. LATE APPUKUTTY MASTER, KARTHIKA HOUSE, VELLOOR AMSOM DESOM, ATHOLI P.O., QUILANDY. 3. C.V. RAVEENDRAN, S/O. LATE KUNHIRAMAN, THUSHARA HOUSE, VELLOOR AMSOM DESOM, ATHOLI P.O., QUILANDY. 4. SREEHARI, S/O. LATE THAROOTHAN, YAMUNA HOUSE, VELLOOR AMSOM DESOM, ATHOLI P.O., QUILANDY. 5. BHASKARAN NAIR, RETIRED DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, S/O. LATE KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, CHANDUVEETTIL HOUSE, VELLOOR AMSOM DESOM, ATHOLI P.O., QUILANDY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 23494 OF 2008 V ==================== Dated this the 5th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Following Ext.P4 judgment of this court it is contended that the petitioner was given Ext.P5 permit for the construction of a compound wall. According to the petitioners soon thereafter by Ext.P7, petitioners were required to stop the work and also show cause why Ext.P5 permit shall not be revoked. On receipt of Ext.P7, petitioners have filed their reply by Ext.P8. It is at that stage this writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P7 and seeking an order permitting the petitioners to proceed with the construction. 2. Ext.P7 is in the nature of a show cause notice calling upon the petitioners to show cause why Ext.P5 shall not be revoked and as the petitioners have filed their reply by Ext.P8, it is essential for the 1st respondent Panchayat to take a final decision in this matter. Since a finality has not been given to Ext.P7, I am not inclined to go into the merits of the contentions now canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. In my view at this stage what is required is to direct the WPC 23494/08 :2 : Panchayat to finalise the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 on an expeditious basis. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand disposed of directing that on the production of a copy of this judgment, 1st respondent Panchayat shall finalise the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 with notice to the petitioners. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment before the respondent Panchayat for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp