IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6946 of 2010(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ 1. SABU.O.V, S/O. VISWANATHAN, OLIKKAL, MUTTAPPALLI.P.O. MUTTAPPALLI, ERUMELI PANCHAYAT. 2. O.P.NASAR, S/O. PAREETH, URAVALAM PARAMBIL, MUKKOOTT THARA.P.O., MUTTAPPALLI, ERUMELI PANCHAYAT. 3. T.D.RAMESH, S/O. DAMODARAN, THAZHAKKAL, KANNIMALA.P.O., THUMARAMPARA, ERUMELI PANCHAYAT. 4. K.H.SHAJAHAN, S/O. HASAN RAUTHAR, KOORKUNNEL, CHATHANTHARA,ERUMELI PANCHAYAT. 5. ABDUL MAJEED, URAVALAM PARMBIL, MUKOOTTUTHARA.P.O., MUTTAPPALLI, ERUMELI PANCHAYAT. 6. UBAID, S/O. K.K.HAMEED RAUTHAR, KAVUNKAL HOUSE, CHATHANATHARA.P.O., KOLLAMULA,ERUMELI PANCHAYAT. 7. MOHANAN.P.A., S/O.AYYAPPAN, PARAKKAL, MUKOOTUTHARA, ERUMELI PANCHAYAT. BY ADV. SRI.RAFFEEKH.K SRI.LAIJU CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. ERUMELI PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ERUMELI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY,ERUMELI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ERUMELI,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 6946 OF 2010 (P) ===================== Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners challenges Ext.P2 series of notices issued by the 1st respondent Panchayat. These notices require the petitioners to vacate from the premises occupied by them in the shopping complex of the Panchayat. The notice further states that in the event the petitioners do not comply with the said requirement, steps will be taken in accordance with law for getting them evicted. Petitioners submit that Ext.P2 series of notices are illegal, in as much as the same was passed without notice to them and for violation of the provisions contained in Kerala Public Building (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1968. 2. Having gone through Ext.P2 notices, I am not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. First of all Ext.P2 is only a notice and all that is mentioned in Ext.P2 is that in the event the petitioners fail to vacate from the premises mentioned therein, steps will be taken by the Panchayat in accordance with law for evicting the petitioners. Therefore, Ext.P2 notice by itself will not give the petitioners any cause of action for WPC No. 6946/10 :2 : redressal before this Court. 3. Ext.P2 also makes reference to the order passed by the Ombudsman, Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in OP No.703/09, but the said order is not produced nor have the petitioners challenged the said order. If the Panchayat has taken action on the basis of an order passed by the Ombudsman, which order has become final, the Panchayat cannot be faulted for the steps it has taken. Be that as it may, since Ext.P2 are only notices, writ petition is dismissed, but however without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioners on the merits of the controversy. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp