IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2010 / 17TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 32732 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ ALFA ONE GLOBAL BUILDERS PVT.LTD., GRAND PLAZA BUILDINGS, FORT ROAD, KANNUR THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI.P.K.LUTHUFUDDIN. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.T.PRAVEEN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, EDAKKAD GRAMAPANCHAYAT P.O.THOTTADA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. RAJEESH M., SECRETARY, EDAKKAD PANCHAYAT PARISTHITHI SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI MALIKAPARAMBU, EDAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED FOR R2 SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN FOR R1 SRI.P.K.MAHASH FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 32732 OF 2009 (J) ===================== Dated this the 7th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2, a communication issued by the 1st respondent Panchayat requiring the petitioner to stop further construction activities on the ground that a public agitation is going on in the area. On an application made by the petitioner, they were granted Ext.P1 series of building permits, on the strength of which, construction activities were going on. It would appear that for reasons of their own, the 2nd respondent started agitation which led the Panchayat to issue Ext.P2 stop memo. On receipt of Ext.P2, petitioner sought its revocation by filing Ext.P3, but was of no avail. It is therefore, the writ petition is filed. 2. Counsel for the 1st respondent submits that it was only on account of the reasons mentioned in Ext.P2 that the same was issued. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, it is contended that the proposal is to establish a concrete mixing plant and that if the proposal materialises, that will result in acute shortage of water and it was therefore that they resorted to agitation. WPC 32732/09 :2 : 3. As at present, the petitioner has obtained necessary building permits and if so, petitioner is entitled to proceed with the construction. On the other hand, if the 2nd respondent or anybody else is aggrieved by the construction, the first step is to seek cancellation of the building permits instead of taking law into their hands or compelling the Panchayat to issue an order in the nature of Ext.P2. So long as Ext.P1 series of building permit remains in force, Panchayat could not have issued Ext.P2 and for that reason the same is illegal and is accordingly quashed. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp