Koyamoideen P.P vs Mangalam Grama Panchayath
2022 Latest Caselaw 9802 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

         FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 4TH BHADRA, 1944

                        WP(C) NO. 16495 OF 2017

PETITIONER/S:

           KOYAMOIDEEN P.P
           S/O. MOHAMMEDKUTTY, AGED 62 YRS., MOULANA HOUSE, POST
           KOOTAYI,TIIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
           BY ADV SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL


RESPONDENT/S:

     1     MANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH
           POST MANGALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676 561,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
     2     THE SECRETARY
           MANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, POST MANGALAM, MALAPPURAM
           DISTRICT PIN 676 561.
     3     P.P MOHAMMED YASIN
           S/O. MOHAMMED KUTTY, MOULANA HOUSE, POST KOOTAYI,TIRUR
           TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN 676 562
           BY ADVS.
           SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS
           SRI.M.DEVESH
           SRI.K.C.KIRAN
           SMT.MEENA.A.
           SRI.SAJU.S.A
           SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH
           SRI.VINAY MATHEW JOSEPH



      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

     26.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
  W.P.(C) No. 16495/2017               :2:




                             SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
           ---------------------------------------------------------
                        W.P.(C). No. 16495 of 2017
             ---------------------------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 26th day of August, 2022.

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to

the second respondent not to issue a building permit to the 3 rd

respondent to conduct renovation work in the compound of

MMMHSS, Koottayi, without hearing the petitioner and also to stall

the illegal construction of the 3rd respondent.

2. However, today, when the matter is taken up for

consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the matter has become infructuous.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.

sd/­ SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

Rv