Shihab Thangal vs Ajanur Panchayath, Rep.By Its ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 15059 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
  FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1943
                     WP(C) NO. 12103 OF 2016
PETITIONER:

            SHIHAB THANGAL
            AGED 36 YEARS
            S/O.SAYYAD MUHAMMED THANGAL, SAYYAD MANZIL,
            MANIKKOTH, AJANUR PO,
            HOSDURG TALUK

            BY ADV SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR



RESPONDENTS:

    1       AJANUR PANCHAYATH,
            REP.BY ITS SECRETARY
            VELLIKKOTH, ANJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK,
            671314

    2       THE SECRETARY
            AJANUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VELLIKKOTH,
            ANJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK 671314

            BY ADV SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS




     THIS     WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON   16.07.2021,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 12103 OF 2016
                                    -2-



                             JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by the

petitioner seeking a direction to the Secretary,

Ajanur Grama Panchayath, Hosdurg Taluk, Kasaragod

district, to consider Ext.P1 representation. The

subject issue relates to alleged putting up of a

structure by the Ajanur Grama Panchayath, so as

to interfere with the passage of the petitioner.

2. According to the petitioner, the attempt

of the Panchayath is illegal and arbitrary, since

the petitioner was enjoying the pathway for the

past several decades and if the construction is

allowed to be put up, it would cause serious

prejudice to the petitioner.

3. I have heard Adv.Arunkumar A., the

learned counsel for the petitioner and Adv.

T.K.Vipindas, the learned counsel appearing for

the Panchayath and perused the pleadings and WP(C) NO. 12103 OF 2016

materials on record.

4. When the writ petition was admitted to

the files of this Court on 30.03.2016, status quo

was directed to be maintained for a period of

three months, thereafter it was extended by three

months on 29.06.2016. The recorded proceedings

show that thereafter the interim order was not

extended. However learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that, petitioner would be

satisfied, if a direction is issued to finalise

Ext.P1 representation submitted by the

petitioner. Eventhough notice is served on the

Panchayath, there is no counter affidavit filed..

5. Therefore, I am unable to ascertain as

to whether the issue raised by the petitioner is

still subsisting. Anyhow, the relief sought for

is innocuous in nature and therefore it is only

appropriate that the direction is issued as is WP(C) NO. 12103 OF 2016

sought for by the petitioner.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to

the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P1

representation submitted by the petitioner, if it

is still remaining consideration, at the

earliest, and at any rate, within a month from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I

make it clear that if already the Ext.P1 was

acted upon and a decision was taken the direction

would stand vacated.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE hmh WP(C) NO. 12103 OF 2016

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12103/2016

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.03.2016 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

PETITIONER EXHIBITS NIL