IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26934 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- K.SESHADRI, S/O KRISHNA IYER, AGED 69 YEARS, VRINDAVAN, KAILAS NAGAR, KALPATHY, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENGTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY. 3. THE SECRETARY, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD. 4. THE ART & HERITAGE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMEBER SECRETARY, THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, PALAYAM, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM. 5. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) FOR R3 SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R3 SRI.JIBU P THOMAS FOR R3 SRI.P.S.APPU FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. DEEPA K.R. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.26934 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Exts.P2 and P4 notices issued by the 2nd respondent Municipality directing the petitioner to stop construction of the building, for which the petitioner had already obtained Ext.P1 building permit. This action has been on the basis of Ext.P3 letter from the Government. The petitioner contends that after having issued the building permit validly, the Municipality cannot interdict the petitioner from continuing the construction. He also challenges Ext.P3. 2. I am not inclined to consider the contentions of the petitioner on merit at this point of time in so far as Exts.P2 and P4 are only stop memos. After having issued a stop memo, the Municipality has a duty to finalise the proceedings either way, by passing a final order. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 2 and 3 to pass final orders pursuant to Exts.P2 and P4, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of W.P.(c)No.26934/08 2 one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the meantime, the petitioner would be free to continue the interior work of the building, which shall be subject to the final orders to be passed as directed above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.26934/08 3