JUDGMENT : W.P.(C)No.9934/2025 is filed to direct the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P11 partial completion certificate and issue occupancy certificate in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994 and the Kerala Panchayath Building Rule, 2019, without delay. W.P. (C)No.17471/2024 is filed to direct the respondents 3 and 4 to take immediate steps against the unauthorised construction being carried out by the 5 th respondent (petitioner in W.P(C)No.9934/2025) despite Ext.P7 stop memo. As the dispute and the parties in the writ petitions are the same, the writ petitions are consolidated, jointly heard and disposed of by this common judgment. The parties are referred to as per the status of the parties in W.P(C)No.9934/2025, which is treated as a leading case. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.9934/2025 is the owner in possession of 117 m 2 land comprised in Survey No.145/2-18 of the Parathode Village, Udumbanchola Taluk , Idukki District. He had obtained a building permit for the construction of a two storied building in his property. After the completion of the construction of the first floor, he had submitted a partial completion certificate with application for obtaining occupancy certificate. However, the same has not been considered till date, due to the pendency of W.P(C)No.17471/2024 filed by the 7 th respondent, to direct the respondents 1 and 2, to restrain the petitioner from carrying on with the unauthorised construction. 3. When the writ petitions came up for consideration on 20.3.2025, this Court directed the 2 nd respondent to consider Ext.P11 application submitted by the petitioner and take a decision within one month from the date of order, after hearing the petitioner and the 7 th respondent 4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 7 th respondent. 5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the 2 nd respondent has considered the petitioner’s application and issued the occupancy certificate on 8.5.2025. 6. The learned counsel for the 7 th respondent submits that, the 7 th respondent was served with notice only after the hearing was completed. Therefore, the order issuing the occupancy certificate is unsustainable in law. 6. The learned counsel for the 7 th respondent submits that, the 7 th respondent was served with notice only after the hearing was completed. Therefore, the order issuing the occupancy certificate is unsustainable in law. On a consideration of the facts and materials on record, especially that the 1 st respondent has already issued occupancy certificate to the petitioner, I am of the view that the writ petitions have outlived their purpose. Therefore, the writ petitions are closed, by reserving the right of the parties to workout their remedies in accordance with law.