IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 32118 of 2005(W) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- PALLICHAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VEDIVACHANKOVIL P.O. BALARAMAPURAM (VIA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.L.MOHANAN, SMT.LIGEY ANTONY. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. JAYAKUMAR. V.P., RESIDING AT MAVARAVILA VEEDU, PALLICHAL, NEMOM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SASIDHARAN, RESIDING AT RAJ VIHAR, PALLICHAL, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.RAM MOHAN.G., MR.G.P.SHINOD, MR.MANU. V. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 32118/2005-W APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/10/2004. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/01/2005. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 15/12/1999. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.32118 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is the decision taken by the petitioner Panchayat requiring the first respondent to demolish certain construction made by him on the basis that the same was undertaken deviating from the plan approved by the Panchayat trespassing into the public road. Against Ext.P1, the first respondent filed appeal No.21/2004 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Instructions. By Ext.P2 order dated 17th January, 2005, the Tribunal set aside Ext.P1. It was ordered that the Panchayat will proceed on the basis that the width of the road was only 3 meters and on that basis the matter will be verified and if any trespass is found, necessary action will be taken. However, the Tribunal proceeded further and directed that a copy of the order along with Ext.P4 and a copy of page No.17 of Ext.R1 in the proceedings before the Tribunal will be forwarded to the Director of Panchayat to conduct enquiry and to initiate action against the Secretary of the Panchayat. It is challenging Ext.P2 order that this writ petition is filed by the Panchayat. WPC.No. 32118/05 :2 : 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of this writ petition, the Panchayat has numbered the building of the first respondent. The fact that the building has been numbered is confirmed by the counsel for the first respondent. Therefore, the grievance of the first respondent to that extent stands redressed. 3. What remains is whether the order of the Tribunal was justified in ordering that proceedings be initiated against the Secretary. Reasoning of the Tribunal for passing this direction is contained in paragraph 9 and 10 of the order. A reading of these paragraphs of the order shows that the Tribunal passed such a direction based on the inferences drawn by it from the files, that the Secretary made certain corrections in the plan and that he also wrongly submitted that such correction was made based on his inspection. Although, going by the reasons given by the Tribunal in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the order, the direction issued cannot be said to be without justification, still having regard to the long lapse of time and also taking into account the fact that the building of the first respondent has since been numbered and that since no proceedings are contemplated against him, the WPC.No. 32118/05 :3 : grievance of the petitioner to that extent stands redressed and also taking into account the fact that the Secretary is at the fag end of his career, the last portion of Expt.P2 order directing that action shall be initiated by the Director of Panchayat based on the observation of the Tribunal in paragraph 9 and 20 is deleted. Subject to the above modification, the order will stand confirmed. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/