K R BAIJU Vs. MANNANCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is squarely covered by Ext. P4 judgment passed by this Court; despite which a fictitious complaint has been preferred before the 5th respondent Human Rights Commission without revealing the actual facts and figures and obtained some interim orders, so as to stall the proceedings being pursued by the petitioner in connection with the operation of the tar-mixing unit set up by the petitioner complying with all legal requirement to execute the work contract awarded to him. THE learned counsel further submits that all the conditions imposed by the statutory authorities including the Pollution Control Board and those suggested in the course of the discussion on the intervention of the third respondent /District Collector, as evident from Ext. P6 minutes have been satisfied and that the petitioner has not violated any of the statutory prescriptions or other conditions stipulated. In the said circumstances, it is contended , there is absolutely no rhyme or reason for having issued Ext. P8 'stop memo' by the Panchayath on 17.01.2011, simply referring to the order stated as passed by the Human Rights Commission; more so when the matter is already finalised by this Court vide Ext. P4 judgment .