E P GEORGE Vs. CHERANELLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT CHERANELLOOR SOUTH CHITTOOR P O REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by Ext.P9. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that Ext.P6 resolution was passed by the respondent Panchayat unanimously permitting laying of slabs over a thodu passing through the property of the petitioner. Subsequently, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P9 instructing the petitioner not to proceed with the laying of slabs in pursuance to Ext.P6 acting upon the dissent raised by the 2nd respondent, a member of the Panchayat. It was aggrieved by this communication issued by the Panchayat, the writ petition was filed.

(2.) THE contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is one relying on Section 161(8) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.

(3.) HAVING heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the respondent, I am inclined to think that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Section 161(8) reads as under;