IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7474 of 2009(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.SURESH KUMAR, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. PRABHAKARAN, PRASADAM HOUSE, SOUTH KALLARA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KALLARA (VAIKOM) GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KALLARA, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE SECRETARY, KALLARA (VAIKOM) GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KALLARA, KOTTAYAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON 11/03/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.7474 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order, by which the petitioner has been directed to demolish that portion of the building constructed by the petitioner which violates the provisions of Section 220(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The contention of the petitioner is that the building was constructed prior to 1994, ie., prior to the coming into force of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and therefore, Section 220(b) is not applicable to the said building. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “i) Call for the records relating to Ext.P3 and to quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order; ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the 1st respondent to dispose of Ext.P4 as expeditiously within a time frame.” 2. I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition for several reasons. First is that Ext.P3 order has been passed on 4.6.2007. The first time the petitioner objected to the same is by filing Ext.P4 before the Government on 31.5.2008. He has filed this writ petition only on 6.3.2009. The petitioner has not satisfactorily explained the long delay in challenging the impugned order also. Further, even in this writ petition he has not produced any evidence to satisfy this Court that the construction is prior to 1994.In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 2