IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2008 / 15TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29203 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.HAMZA, S/O ABOOBACKER, PROPRIETOR, M/S HOEL SITHARA INTERNATIONA, KUMILY, RESIDING AT PULLISSERY HOUSE,MAMAMKARA, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KUMILY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KUMILY, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN 685 509, 2. KUMILY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KUMILY, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN 685 509, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. SHRI.S.SHANASVASKHAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.29203 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P16 order whereby the petitioner has been directed to demolish a building constructed by the petitioner. The petitioner's contention in this writ petition is that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P(C).No.27064/2007 in which the following judgment was passed: “No representation for the petitioner. Sri.S.Shanavas Khan, the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat submits that Ext.P10 can be construed as an appeal against Ext.P9 order. Under these circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition itself directing the Kumily Grama Panchayat to take up Ext.P10, hear the petitioner and any other concerned party and dispose of the same in accordance with law at the earliest and at any rate within one month of receiving a copy of this judgment. Considering the above direction, Ext.P9 is ordered to be kept in abeyance till Ext.P10 is disposed of.” 2. According to the petitioner, the Panchayat could not have passed Ext.P16 order without complying with Ext.P11 judgment, especially when this Court had directed that, the earlier order, which was produced as Ext.P9 in that writ petition, had been directed to be kept in abeyance till the appeal is disposed of as contemplated in Ext.P11 judgment. 3. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing 2 for the Panchayat also. 4. The Standing Counsel for the Panchayat could not satisfy me that an order as contemplated in Ext.P11 judgment has been passed after hearing the petitioner, although the counsel would try to argue that Ext.P16 is the order passed pursuant to Ext.P11 judgment. 5. In Ext.P11 judgment what has been directed is to consider the petitioner's appeal. Evidently there is no consideration of such an appeal in Ext.P16. In an appeal the order should be either dismissing or allowing or disposing of the appeal. There is no such finding in Ext.P16. All what has been stated therein is a direction to the petitioner to demolish his building. Therefore, clearly Ext.P16 is not an order as contemplated in Ext.P11. Accordingly, Ext.P16 is quashed. The Panchayat is directed to comply with Ext.P11 judgment before proceeding further in the matter. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 3