(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by respondents 1 and 3 in W.P.(C) No. 7966 of 2010 aggrieved by an interim order dated 03.06.2010.
(2.) THE 1st respondent herein filed the abovementioned writ petition questioning the legality of certain orders passed by the appellant herein. The 1st respondent constructed a particular building after demolishing the existing building on the property owned by him. The appellants passed the orders impugned in the writ petition. The substance of the order is that the construction is an illegal construction as it is alleged that the construction did not comply with the requirements of Section 220(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and subsequently action was proposed to be initiated against the respondents. Along with the main prayer the 1st respondent sought for an interim order in the writ petition. The prayer in that regard is as follows:
(3.) THE order under appeal came to be passed after hearing both the parties. The learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri. Julian Xavier, argued that the interim prayer and prayer No. (b) of the main prayers are identical and therefore the interim order which is the subject matter of the instant appeal could not have been passed. In spite of the specific query as to the prejudice or irrecoverable loss that the appellant would suffer by complying with the interim direction, the learned Counsel for the appellant could not point out any such prejudice or irrecoverable loss except asserting that it is held by the Supreme Court in P.R. Sinha v. Inder Kriwshan Raina : (1996) 1 SCC 681, wherein at paragraph 6 it is stated as follows: