NEENA MATHEW Vs. THAMARASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's grievance is that, though on the strength of an auction conducted on the basis of Ext.P1 auction notice a room belonging to the first respondent Panchayat was auctioned to her and she was put in possession of the room, the respondent Panchayat has now under Ext.P5 order canceled the auction and directed her to collect back the amounts which had been deposited by her with the Panchayat. Sri.Sunny Mathew the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of Exts. P2 to P4 the petitioner is actually conducting business in the premises and therefore implementation of Ext.P5 will work out considerable hardship towards the petitioner.

(2.) I do not propose to examine the genuineness of the above grievance. I notice that the petitioner has remedy before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. Hence I relegate the petitioner to that remedy. However, any proceedings for evicting the petitioner from the room in question on the strength of Ext.P5 will be kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks from today.