Anil K.Narendran, J. 1. This writ appeal is filed by the 4th respondent in W.P.(C).No.29037/08 challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 12.12.2008 in that writ petition. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the said writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 3 to 5 herein to stop the unauthorised construction made by the appellant in her property having an extent of 1.48 cents comprised in Re-survey No.20/23/2 and 20/8/2 of Puthencruz village and for other consequential reliefs. It is alleged in the writ petition that One Ayisha Beevi, the predecessor in interest of the appellant attempted to put up an unauthorised construction in the property in question, which lead to issuance of Ext.P1 stop memo by the 4th respondent, the Secretary of Vadavucode-Puthencruz Grama Panchayat. The appellant purchased the property subsequently from the said Ayisha Beevi. Alleging that the appellant is attempting to put up construction irrespective of Ext.P1 stop memo, respondents 1 and 2 filed Ext.P2 petition before the Panchayat. Thereafter, they have approached this Court in W.P.(C).No.29037/08 alleging that, despite Ext.P2 petition the Panchayat is not taking any action against the unauthorised construction made by the appellant.
2. On receipt of notice in the writ petition, the appellant entered appearance and filed counter affidavit contending that, after the receipt of Ext.P1 stop memo Smt. Ayisha Beevi stopped the work. After purchasing the said property the appellant has not made any construction in violation of Ext.P1 stop memo. Though Smt.Ayisha Beevi filed Ext.R4(a) reply to Ext.P1 stop memo, the Panchayat has not taken any final decision on the matter. The appellant further contended that, the Panchayat issued Ext.P1 stop memo based on a complaint made by one Sandeep John, who is not a party to the writ petition and that, the attempt of respondents 1 and 2 is only to harass the appellant in order to force her to sell the property to them.
3. The learned single Judge, by judgment dated 12.12.2008, disposed of the writ petition concluding that, as Ext.P1 stop memo is still in force respondents 3 to 5 are bound to enforce the same. Based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the Panchayat that the 5th respondent herein, the Sub Inspector of Police, Ambalamedu Police Station, has already been addressed seeking police assistance for enforcing Ext.P1 stop memo, the learned single Judge ordered that, if such a request has been received from the Panchayat, the 5th respondent shall see that Ext.P1 stop memo is promptly enforced and that the appellant does not continue the construction. It is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge, the appellant is before us in this writ appeal.
4. We have considered the contentions raised in this writ appeal and also pursed the judgment of the learned single judge.
5. The main grievance of the appellant is that in spite of Ext.R4(a) reply submitted to Ext.P1 stop memo, the Panchayat is yet to pass final orders thereon. The learned single judge, without directing the Panchayat to finalise the matter directed the Panchayat to enforce Ext.P1 stop memo with police assistance.
6. We find ourselves unable to agree with the view taken by the learned single judge. When the predecessor in interest of the petitioner filed Ext.R4(a) reply to Ext.P1 stop memo, the Panchayat ought to have passed final orders in the matter after considering such reply, with notice to both sides. The enforcement of Ext.P1 stop memo, without passing final orders based on Ext.R4(a) reply, is per se arbitrary and in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, the judgment of the learned single judge in W.P.(C).No.29037/08 cannot be sustained in law.
7. In the result, we dispose of this writ appeal, setting aside the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 12.12.2008 in W.P.(C).No.29037/08 and directing the Secretary of the Panchayat, the 4th respondent herein, to consider Ext.R4(a) reply submitted by the predecessor in interest of the appellant to Ext.P1 stop memo and take an appropriate decision, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. It would be open to the appellant to file additional reply, if any, in order to supplement Ext.R4(a) reply filed by her predecessor in interest.
8. Needless to say that, before taking a decision, as directed above, the 4th respondent shall afford the appellant and respondents 1 and 2 herein a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Till final orders are passed by the 4th respondent herein, as aforesaid, the implementation of Ext.P1 stop memo shall be kept in abeyance. On the other hand, if final orders on Ext.P1 stop memo had already been passed, the parties shall be governed by that order.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.
kkb.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, Judge.
/True copy/ PS to Judge