IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 23RD BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25845 of 2009(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JOSE JOSEPH, S/O.T.I.JOSEPH, AGED 51, KOKKAPPALLY HOUSE, KOOVAPPALLY, KANJIRAPPALLY-686 518. BY ADV. MR.K.R.SUNIL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, KANJIRAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANJIRAPPALLY-686 507. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS, KOTTAYAM. 3. ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O.ABDULLA, AGED 78, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, KANJIRAPPALLY. 4. KAMARUDHEEN, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 42, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, KANJIRAPPALLY. R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. V. MANU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 25845 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009 JUDGMENT Notice to respondents dispensed with, preserving their right to move for rehearing, if aggrieved by the directions contained in this judgment. 2. The petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 are neighbours. The first respondent has issued Ext.P2 stop memo interdicting further constructions by respondents 3 and 4. That was generated on Ext.P1 complaint by the petitioner. Ext.P2 having been issued, it is the bounden duty of the first respondent to ensure that it is enforced. If respondents 3 and 4 have any objection to that, those objections have to be considered. The petitioner is also entitled to an opportunity of hearing. This shall also happen without delay. If respondents 3 and 4 object to Ext.P2, ultimately the Secretary will have to issue an order disclosing reasons for his decision, even if he stand by Ext.P2 and upholds the objections raised by the petitioner or concludes that the construction by respondents 3 and 4 is in terms of duly Woc 25845/2009 2 issued plan and permit. But, I am clear in my mind that the first respondent cannot sleep over his responsibilities under the Panchayat Raj Act. Under such circumstances, this writ petition is ordered directing that the first respondent shall do the needful following Ext.P2 and enforce that order unless it is set aside after hearing the parties. Petitioner will be at liberty to bring to the notice of this court any particular dereliction of duty by statutory authorities in this matter. All other issues left open. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/15/9