IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15928 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- T.NARAYANAN, 39/2756/A, AYILYAM, ELLAM LANE, PALYAM ROAD, COCHIN 682 016. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. MARADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MARADU, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY SECRETARY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.CHANDRASENAN FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 15928 OF 2008 U ==================== Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Presently the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 stop memo issued by the Panchayat on the ground that the width of the access road is less than 5 metres and therefore there is violation of Rule 33 of the Kerala Building Rules. Petitioner submits that on receipt of Ext.P3, he had filed Ext.P5 objection and that the matter was heard on 5/5/2008. According to him since orders were not passed, inordinate delay was being caused and hence writ petition was filed. 2. The matter was adjourned for the instructions of the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Panchayat. On instructions, today the counsel submits that on 26/5/2008, dealing with the objections raised by the petitioner, Panchayat has passed orders revoking the licence itself and therefore petitioner is not entitled to continue the construction any more. It is also stated that the whole proceedings were initiated on the basis of the instructions issued by the Government which took objection in the inadequate width of the road and also common recreation facility provided. WPC 15928/08 :2 : 3. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. 4. Now that the Panchayat by its proceedings dated 26/5/2008 has revoked the very licence on the basis of which the petitioner commenced his construction, unless that order is interfered with in appropriate proceedings, the petitioner will not be justified in resuming the work which he had to stop following Ext.P3. Since the petitioner has also been served a copy of the proceedings dated 26/5/2008, it is for the petitioner to pursue the matter availing of the statutory remedies that are provided in the Act itself. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner requested that the petitioner may be allowed to resume work restricting itself to three floors, having regard to the fact that the very licence is revoked, I do not think it proper to grant the prayer. Leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy that is available, this writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp