IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 4984 of 2009(R) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GEORGE, S/O.KURIAKOSE, KODUVTHARA HOUSE, KUMARAKOM, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY E.J.JOSE EDAPPALLICHIRAYIL HOUSE, NENDOOR PO,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.SUBHASH CYRIAC RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ATHIRAMPUZHA GRAMAPANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY IS SECRETARY, ATHIRAMPUZHA. 2. THE SECRETARY ATHIRAMPUZHA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. A.M.MATHEW ERIKKATTU BINIBHAVAN, CHOORAKULANGARA, ETTUMANOOR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.4984 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner constructed a building after obtaining permit from the 1st respondent Grama Panchayat. After the construction was over, the 3rd respondent approached the Grama Panchayat with an allegation that the construction is in violation of the building rules. Originally, the 1st respondent after inspection and measurement found that there is no violation of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. Accordingly, the Panchayat refused to take any action on the complaint of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent filed an appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions and by Ext.P7 order, the Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the Secretary on the reasoning that the Secretary has not considered all the relevant aspects of the issue involved. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P7 order. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner forcefully argues W.P.(c)No.4984/09 2 that Ext.P7 order has to be quashed, in so far as there is no violation of the building rules, I am unable to find anything wrong with Ext.P7 order, since the Tribunal has not decided the matter on merits. The Tribunal has only directed the 1st respondent to take a fresh decision in accordance with the directions therein. I do not find anything wrong with Ext.P7 order. The petitioner is still free to raise all his contentions before the 2nd respondent, who is bound to consider the petitioner's contentions also while passing fresh orders as per the directions of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.4984/09 3