Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Justine.V.G vs Pallipuram Grama Panchayat

Author: Antony Dominic

Bench: Antony Dominic

       

  

  

 
 
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                            PRESENT:

                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

              TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2012/12TH ASHADHA 1934

                                    WP(C).No. 7420 of 2012 (B)
                                       --------------------------

    PETITIONER(S):
    -------------------------

       JUSTINE.V.G.,
       S/O GEORGE, VADASSERY HOUSE, PARAVOOTHARA,
       NORTH PARUR- 683 513

       BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN
                     SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR
                     SRI.K.JAGADEESH

    RESPONDENT(S):
    -------------------------------

       PALLIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
       REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY,
       PALLIPURAM- 683 514.

    *ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED

    *R2: KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY,
           REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, SASTHRA BHAVAN,
           PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM-695 004.

    *ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 03/4/2012 IN I.A.NO.5241/2012

       R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI
       R2 BY ADV.SRI. S.RAMESH,SC,COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
                        SRI.PRAKASH C.VADAKKAN. J., SC, KCZMA


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
     ON 03-07-2012, ALONG WITH WPC.NO. 7887 OF 2012, THE COURT
     ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:



sts



                       ANTONY DOMINIC,J
                ----------------------------------
                W.P.(C)Nos.7420 & 7887 of 2012
             ----------------------------------------
               Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2012

                          JUDGMENT

These writ petitions were filed seeking to challenge the orders passed by the Secretary of the Panchayath rejecting the applications made by the petitioners on the ground that if the request made is granted that would be in violation of CRZ notification.

2. Now the petitioners submit that in view of the delay involved, presently they do not intend to proceed with the proposed construction and they only want to repair the existing structures. Therefore, they seek withdraw the writ petitions with liberty to repair the existing structures.

Therefore, the writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn leaving it open to the petitioners to comply with the procedure required and repair the existing structures.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ln