IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 33327 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.D.VARGHESE, S/O.DEVASSIA, MYPPADAN VEEDU, EDOOR AMSOM, P.O.PAYAM, IRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ARALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ADOOR, PAYAM P.O., IRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SECRETARY, ARALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ADOOR, PAYAM P.O., IRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 33327/2008 -------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF WRITE UP PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY. EXT.P2 COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DT. 16-7-2003. EXT.P3 NOTICE DT. 11-6-2003. EXT.P4 PROCEEDINGS DT. 18-7-2003. EXT.P5 APPEAL DT. 12-8-2003. EXT.P6 JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO. 34337/2004. EXT.P7 NOTICE DT. 3-11-2008. EXT.P8 AUCTION NOTICE DT. 7-11-2008. EXT.P9 NEWS REPORT PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 33327 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 21st November, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner approached this Court inter alia with a contention that an order passed by the Panchayat is sought to be implemented without serving copy of that order on the petitioner. In the above circumstances, by order dated 17-11-2008, I directed that if the petitioner presents himself before the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent shall issue another copy of the order based on Ext. P5 appeal subject to their contention that the order had already been issued to the petitioner. Now the petitioner admits that he has been given a copy of the order as directed, on 19-11-2008 In so far as the petitioner is now in possession of the copy of the order, the remedy available to the petitioner is to file a revision before the Tribunal. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a revision against the order, copy of which has now been served on him. Petitioner seeks a breathing time to file revision and seeks a direction to the Panchayat not to implement the impugned order till the petitioner files an appeal. This is opposed by the counsel for the Panchayat. However, taking a lenient view, I direct that the interim order passed by me shall continue to be in force for a period of two more weeks to enable the petitioner to file an appeal and seek interim orders. I make it abundantly clear that I have not considered any of the contentions on merits and it would be open to the Tribunal to consider all the contentions of the parties in accordance with law, including a contention that the order was served on the petitioner earlier, that may be raised by the Panchayat. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/