The subject matter of both these writ petitions is the same. Therefore, they are heard and disposed of together. The facts are referred to with respect to W.P.(C) No.17195 of 2014. 2. According to the petitioner, the third respondent has put up an unauthorised construction against which, he had made complaints to the second respondent. The second respondent has passed an order directing demolition of the construction which is Ext.P6. Ext.P6 is dated 11.4.2014. The third respondent did not challenge Ext.P6 before any authority. Therefore, the said order has become final. He has sought for the issue of appropriate directions for the implementation of Ext.P6.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent. According to the second respondent, in implementation of Ext.P6 Ext.R2(a) order has been passed authorising the Assistant Engineer to demolish and remove the W.P.(C).Nos.17195 & 21921 of 2014 2 offending construction. Since the third respondent had submitted a representation before the first respondent, the actual demolition has not been carried out.
4. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit.
According to the third respondent, he has filed O.S.No.362 of 2014 before the Munsiff's Court, Kochi, in relation to the subject matter of this writ petition, which is pending. Therefore, it is contended that the demolition of the unauthorised construction would have to await the outcome of the said suit.
5. W.P.(C) No.21921 of 2014 is filed by the third respondent in the earlier writ petition for a direction that any demolition of the unauthorised construction can be effected only after fixation of the boundary of his property in accordance with the decree passed by the Munsiff's Court, Kochi in .362 of 2014.
Heard. I notice that Ext.P6 order has been passed as early as on 11.4.2014. Though the third respondent had a statutory remedy against the same, the said order was not challenged. Therefore, the order Ext.P6 has become final. Ext.R2(a) has been issued in implementation of Ext.P6. For the above reasons, there W.P.(C).Nos.17195 & 21921 of 2014 3 is no prohibition against the implementation of Ext.P6, in accordance with the authorisation contained in Ext.R2(a). The suit O.S.No.362 of 2014 has been presented only on 18.2.2014 whereas Ext.P6 order had been passed on 11.4.2014. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the implementation of Ext.P6 should await the outcome of the original suit. In the above view of the matter, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the Panhcayat to implement Ext.P6 without further delay.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
rkc.