IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 W.P.(C).No. 18934 of 2008(D) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- CHAVAKKAD TALUK RURAL HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO. (R) 344, PAVARATTY,RE PRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY IN CHARGE JUSTIN,S/O. JOSEPH,M OLAKKENKIL,PAVARATTY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SRI.BINDU SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, PAVARATTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, (SPECIAL GRADE) PAVARATTY P.O., THRISSUR. 2. THE PRESIDENT PAVARATTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, (SPECIAL GRADE) PAVARATTY P.O., THRISSUR. 3. PAVARATTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, (SPECIAL GRADE) PAVARATTY P.O., THRISSUR. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 18934 OF 2008 - D = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th June 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that on the strength of a building permit that was issued by the respondent Panchayat, they had commenced construction of a multi-storied building. While so, by Ext. P3 the building permit was temporarily cancelled and the petitioner was called upon to appear for a personal hearing, by Ext. P5 notice. Petitioner submits that in response to Ext.P5, petitioner appeared before the Secretary and was heard on 28.1.2008 in the matter. It is complained that despite the hearing that has taken place on 28.1.2008 and the convincing explanation that was furnished by them, orders have not been passed. It is complaining of delay in passing the orders as above the writ petition has been filed. 2. It is argued that in response to Ext. P5 petitioner appeared and was heard by the Secretary on 28.1.2008. If it so it was incumbent on the part of the Secretary to pass orders without delay. W.P.(C) No. 18934 OF 2008 - 2 - This is all the more so, for the reason that the permit that was issued by the Panchayat has been temporarily cancelled and that has led to a situation that the construction work remains suspended. In view of this, I direct that the respondent Panchayat shall pass orders in pursuance to Ext. P5 for which the petitioner was heard on 28.1.2008. Orders as above shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 3. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the respondent Panchayat for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-