IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 12116 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ T.K.THANKAPPAN, AGED 68, S/O KUMARAN, M/S ALWAYE ENGINEERING WORKS, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIV NAMBISSAN SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHOORNIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHOORNIKKARA, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. KAMATH, AGED 70, M/S FORTUNE, 41/63, VALIYAPARAMBIL, MULLASSERY CANAL ROAD, COCHIN. 4. SUBBALAKSHMI, W/O LATE SASI, L-10G, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, COCHIN. BY G.P. SRI..K.J.MUHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 12116 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of April , 2008 JUDGMENT In the nature of the decision, which is being taken hereunder, it is not necessary to issue notice to any of the respondents. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that the third respondent has errected a hoarding just in front of his premises in such a manner as to completely conceal the premises, where the petitioner is doing business, from public view. On submission of complaint Ext.P1 by the petitioner through Advocate, the Panchayat initiated action against the third respondent vide Ext.P2. It was stated in Ext.P2 that the errection of the hoarding by the third respondent in such a manner as to completely block the public view of the petitioner premises viz. Alwaye Engineering Works amounts to violation of Section 209 (a) & (c) of the Panchayat Raj Act. Under Ext.P2, the third respondent is directed to take immediate steps for shifting of the hoarding lest prosecution proceedings should be initiated against him. 2. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that in spite of Ext.P3 no follow up action has been taken by the Panchayat. Exts.P3 WPC No. 12116/2008 2 and P4 are reminders/ lawyer notices sent by the petitioner to the respondent Panchayat. Ext.P5 photograph produced along with the writ petition will reveal that the grievance of the petitioner that the hoarding errected by the third respondent at the instance of Britannia Biscuit Company will almost completely obstruct public visibility of his business premises is substantially correct. The Panchayat is yet to given reply in response to exts.P3 and P4 sent by the petitioner . 3. In the circumstances of this case and in view of the facts discernible from the averments in the writ petition and the various documents produced, this writ petition will stand disposed of at this stage itself issuing the following directions; i) If the Panchayat has not yet finalised the proceedings initiated by them through Ext.P2, those proceedings will be finalised by the Panchayat at the earliest after hearing the petitioner and the third respondent. Final orders regarding those proceedings will be issued within one month of receiving a copy of this judgment. ii). If the Panchayat has already finalised Ext.P2 proceedings and it has been decided to drop the proceedings initiated against the third respondent, the Panchayat will communicate copy of the decision WPC No. 12116/2008 3 to the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to pursue his statutory remedy against the decision. Iii). If the decision of the Panchayat is to confirm Ext.P2 notice cum order against the third respondent, then the Panchayat will be bound to take follow up action and ensure that the final order is implemented. iv). It is made clear that the above direction for implementation of the final order so passed in favour of the petitioner will be subject to the finality attained by that final order. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk