~~~~~~~~~~~ In this case, this Court by Ext.P1 judgment dated 14.1.2013 rendered in W.P.(C) No.24235/2012 had conclusively adjudicated the issue in question and set aside the impugned order of the Kuruva Grama Panchayat, Padaparambu, Malappuram District (Respondent No.1 therein) and directed the said Panchayat to consider the petitioner's application for building permit afresh and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of one month of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, untramelled by the reasons stated in the order impugned therein. The said Panchayat with full deference to this Court's verdict in Ext.P1 complied with the said directions and had taken a decision in favour of the writ petitioner by granting him Ext.P2 building permit dated 2.4.2013. The respondent herein, viz., the Village Officer, Kuruva, was also a respondent in the Writ Petition No.24235/2012 which resulted in Ext.P1 judgment, as the said party was arrayed as the respondent No.2 therein. So, Ext.P1 judgment was an inter- partes judgment as between the petitioner on one hand and the Kuruva Grama Panchayat, the Village Officer, Kuruva (respondent herein) and another party, viz., the Revenue Divisional Officer, Perinthalmanna. The petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by instituting this Writ Petition because the respondent Village Officer passed the impugned order herein viz., Ext.P3 dated 10.04.2014, whereby the Village Officer found, in his “judgment” that the decision rendered by the Kuruva Panchayat to grant Ext.P2 building permit dated 2.4.2013 in favour of the petitioner is tainted by “illegality” in as much as Ext.P2 was issued not within the time limit of one month stipulated in Ext.P1 judgment. Hence in the considered “wisdom” of the respondent Village Officer, the compliance of Ext.P1 judgment which resulted in Ext.P2 building permit herein, is unenforceable and that the writ petitioner should face the travails of the proceedings as per the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, which proceedings were already impugned in the earlier round of litigation that resulted in Ext.P1 judgment by this Court, which in turn led to the decision conclusively in favour of the writ petitioner as per Ext.P2. Therefore, the order passed by the respondent Village Officer as per the impugned Ext.P3 order herein is nothing short of sitting in judgment over the adjudication made by this Court in Ext.P1 and is nothing short of blatant interference with the directions in Ext.P1 judgment. When the case came before this Court on 2.5.2014, this Court passed the following order:
“In view of the directions positively and conclusively issued by this Court in the judgment dated 14.1.2013 in W.P.(C) NO.24235/2012 (Ext.P1 herein) and in view of the issuance of Ext.P2 Building Permit dated 2.4.2013 by the Panchayath, it is ordered that the operation of the impugned petition (Ext.P3) shall remain stayed.”
2. It was also conveyed to the learned Government Pleader that the attitude shown by the respondent Village Officer in passing Ext.P3 order is nothing short of sitting in judgment over the adjudication made by this Court and in a way re-writing the verdict of this Court and that it is a serious matter that is taken note by this Court. The learned Government Pleader then requested time for instructions as the case was coming up for the first time for admission and the learned Government Pleader has fairly submitted that necessary advice would be given to the respondent and that remedial measures will be taken by the respondent immediately so as to rectify the illegality.
3. Today, viz., 23.5.2014, when the matter came up before this Court, the learned Government Pleader fairly submitted that the respondent Village Officer has already withdrawn Ext.P3 order dated 10.4.2014 in toto and the learned Government Pleader further submitted on the basis of the due instructions from the respondent that the respondent unconditionally tenders his apology to this Court for having issued the impugned proceedings as per Ext.P3 and that the same was issued due to his ignorance of law and that his action may be condoned.
4. As Ext.P3, which is impugned herein, has already been withdrawn by the respondent, the prayer No.1 in this Writ Petition does not survive for consideration on the merits. Needless to say that the petitioner can proceed further on the basis of Ext.P2 building permit, in accordance with law. The unconditional apology tendered by the respondent Village Officer is also accepted and he is cautioned that such action should not be repeated by him.
With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands finally disposed of and the Writ Petition (C) is accordingly closed.
Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.
ps/24/5/2014