IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 31ST BHADRA 1932 WA.No. 1512 of 2010 --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.7966/2010 Dated 03/06/2010 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT 1 AND 3. ----------------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, UZHAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH UZHAVOOR POST, KOTTAYAM -686634. 2. THE UZHAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, (THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 276 OF THE KERALA PANCHAYATH RAJ ACT 1994) REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,UZHAVOOR POST, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. C.D.SUKUMARAN NAIR, S/O.PADMANABHAN NAIR, ADVOCATE, KORATTIYIL HOUSE, KURIANADU POST, PALA-686 636. 2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROADS SECTION, KURAVILANGAD-686 633. R1 BY ADV.SRI.MATHEW JOHN R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 1512 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. This appeal is preferred by respondents 1 and 3 in W.P.(C) No.7966 of 2010 aggrieved by an interim order dated 03.06.2010. 2. The 1st respondent herein filed the abovementioned writ petition questioning the legality of certain orders passed by the appellant herein. The 1st respondent constructed a particular building after demolishing the existing building on the property owned by him. The appellants passed the orders impugned in the writ petition. The substance of the order is that the construction is an illegal construction as it is alleged that the construction did not comply with the requirements of Section 220 (b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and subsequently action was proposed to be initiated against the respondents. 3. Along with the main prayer the 1st respondent WA No. 1512 of 2010 -:2:- sought for an interim order in the writ petition. The prayer in that regard is as follows: “It is also just and necessary and it is also prayed for accordingly that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue suitable interim directions to the 1st respondent to forthwith assign number to the petitioner's building consequent to his application, pending disposal of the writ petition.” 4. The order under appeal came to be passed after hearing both the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.Julian Xavier, argued that the interim prayer and prayer No. (b) of the main prayers are identical and therefore the interim order which is the subject matter of the instant appeal could not have been passed. In spite of the specific query as to the prejudice or irrecoverable loss that the appellant would suffer by complying with the interim direction, the learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any such prejudice or irrecoverable loss except asserting that it is held by the Supreme Court in P.R.Sinha v. Inder Kriwshan Raina [(1996) 1 SCC 681], wherein at paragraph 6 it is stated as follows: WA No. 1512 of 2010 -:3:- “6. This Court has pointed out repeatedly that while entertaining the writ petition the High Court should not pass interim order, the nature of which is to grant a relief which can be granted only at the final disposal of such a writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of State of J & K v. Mohd. Yaqoob Khan (1992) 4 SCC 167.” 5. It may be stated that in the matter before the Supreme Court the issue was whether the interim order passed by the High Court for the supply of coal, wherein the liability of the respondents to make such a supply was in dispute was right? The interim direction would compel a party to part with property which perhaps cannot be restituted even if the writ petition is eventually dismissed. 6. In the instant case we are of the opinion that no such irrecoverable situation exists nor the appellant would be compelled to part with any property. The interim order was passed directing the appellant to provisionally assign number to the building already constructed by the 1st respondent. If the writ petition fails the building can eventually be demolished to the extent it is found to be illegal. In the circumstances, we see WA No. 1512 of 2010 -:4:- no ground to interfere with the judgment under appeal and therefore the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb