IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7831 of 2010(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MOHANAN ACHARI,INDEEVARAM,MUNDACKAL, KOLLAM-691 001. BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO LSG DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KOLLAM CORPORATION,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,CORPORATION BUILDING, KOLLAM-691 001. 3. RADHAMONY,W/O.PRABHAKARAN NAIR, RADHA MANDHIRAM,MUNDACKAL,KOLLAM-691 001. ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR FOR R3 GP K.R.DEEPA SC SRI.PAULY MATHEW MURIKEN SC SRI.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).7831/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 2. The prayer sought is primarily against Exts.P14, P16 and P17. Today when the matter came up, the learned counsel for the petitioner himself submits that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the Government have vide order dated 11.3.2010 recalled Ext.P16 direction in pursuance of which Ext.P17 stop memo was issued. Therefore the challenge against Exts.P16 and P17 does not now survive for consideration. 3. Insofar as Exts.P14 is concerned, that is an order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions for disposing of Appeal 78/2010, filed by the 3rd respondent, a copy of which is Ext.P11. In that appeal filed by the 3rd respondent, Ext.P10 order passed by the Corporation lifting the stop memo issued against the petitioner was under challenge. By Ext.P14 order, W.P.(C).7831/10 2 the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directing the Secretary to initiate fresh proceedings after making necessary inspection of the site in question. Having gone through Ext.P14, I do not find my way to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal committed an illegality in passing Ext.P14. In my view, the Tribunal has taken only a reasonable view. Therefore, the said order does not call for any interference. 4. Be that as it may, necessarily Secretary has to conclude the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P14 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent undertook that the proceedings as directed by the Tribunal will be concluded within three weeks from the date the petitioner produces a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent. The aforesaid submission is recorded and the writ petition is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs