IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 W.A.No.2278 of 2008 ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).17344/2007, DATED 18.09.2007 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER IN R.P./3RD PARTY:- --------------------------------------------------------------------- POOCHAKKAD SREE MAHAVISHNU KSHETRA JEERNODHARANA SAMITHI, KEEKKAN, PALLIKKARA, KASARAGOD DIST., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN R.P./RESPONDENTS & PETITIOENR:- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICES OF REVENUE DIVISION, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DIST. 2. SECRETARY, PALLIKKARE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PALLIKKARA, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DIST. 3. SECRETARY, PRANAVAM KALAVEDHY, THEKKEPPURAM, KEEKKAN P.O., KASARAGOD DIST. 4. B.M.HASSAINAR, GENERAL SECRETARY, SHARAFUL ISLAM COMMITTEE, THEKKEPPURAM, KEEKKAN P.O., KASARAGOD DIST. R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. R2 BY ADV.SRI.T.MADHU. R3 BY ADV.SMT.SONIYA.M. R4 BY ADV.SRI.IMTHIYAZ AHAMED & SRI.SHIRAZ ABDULLA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.Dattu,C.J. & A.K.Basheer,J. -------------------------------------------- W.A.No.2278 of 2008-C -------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 4th December, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu,C.J. This Writ Appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.17344 of 2007, dated 18.09.2007. (2) In the course of the our order, we will be referring to the parties as arrayed in the writ petition. (3) Petitioner in the writ petition is the General Secretary of Sharaful Islam Committee. In the writ petition filed, the petitioner had sought for a direction to the respondents to remove the Arch (“Kamanam”) erected at the starting point of Keekan School Road. The Kamanam depicts the name of “Poochakad Sri Mahavishnu Temple”. Admittedly, the said Kamanam was erected by the 3rd respondent in the writ petition. It is not the case of the appellant before us, that, it has anything to do with the erection of the Kamanam. (4) In the writ petition, it is stated that the area is sensitive for communal violence and by the side of the road, there are mosques and also Mahavishnu Temple. It is further stated, that, earlier communal clashes had erupted in the locality over erection of gates and Kamanams by various religious groups and it is also stated, that, the road is very narrow and the construction of Kamanams would lead to traffic congestion. It is further W.A.No.2278 of 2008 - 2 - pointed out in the writ petition, that, in the wake of communal clashes, a unanimous decision was taken by the leaders of all the communities not to erect any gates or Kamanams. The said discussion and decision was taken in the presence of the Police authorities, District administration and the Panchayat authorities. (5) It is alleged in the writ petition, that, in the mid-night of 13.4.2007, the 3rd respondent, without the prior permission/permit by a competent authority, has erected the disputed Kamanam on the Keekan School Road. In the petition it is also stated, that, the Secretary of the Pallikere Grama Panchayat, as per Exhibit P1 provisional order, had directed the President/Secretary of the Sri Mahavishnu Temple to remove the Arch, which was constructed without permission, within three days from the date of receipt of Exhibit P1 provisional order. (6) Since the Arch was not removed, the petitioner was constrained to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kasaragod, complaining the inaction of the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat in getting the Arch removed, which was constructed by the 3rd respondent. The Revenue Divisional Officer, by his order dated 10.05.2007, has directed the Secretary of Pallikere Grama Panchayat to remove the Arch immediately, since it is reported that it would create communal violence and law and order problems. (7) The writ petition was filed complaining, that, the Panchayat is not taking further action for removing the Arch. W.A.No.2278 of 2008 - 3 - (8) The Panchayat, in the counter affidavit filed before this Court, had stated, that, there are many illegal constructions of this nature in that Panchayat and serious law and order problem would arise if the Kamanam in question alone is removed. It is further stated, that, the Panchayat had deliberated on the issue and finally an all party meeting was convened, which was attended to by all major political parties, social activists, voluntary organizations, etc. and, in that meeting, it was decided, that, the decision to remove this particular Kamanam could be kept in abeyance for a short time, since the attempt to demolish the Kamanam will have adverse effect. (9) The learned Single Judge, after hearing all the parties to the writ proceedings, has directed the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to identify all objectionable constructions, such as Kamanams, Hundies and other structures, over the various Panchayat roads within the area and initiate action for removal of those objectionable structures within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court's order. The Court has also directed the Panchayat to initiate appropriate action for removal of the disputed Kamanam after issuing appropriate notice to the 3rd respondent and also the Temple authorities. The learned Judge has also directed, that, the Panchayat should finalise the proceedings for removal of the unauthorised Kamanam, which is the subject matter of the writ petition, expeditiously, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court's Order. W.A.No.2278 of 2008 - 4 - (10) Aggrieved by the aforesaid positive directions issued by the learned Single Judge, the appellant, which is a Renovation Samithi of Sri Mahavishnu Temple, Poochakkad, has filed this Writ Appeal, after obtaining leave of this Court. (11) Even before approaching this Court, the appellant had filed a Review Petition before the learned Single Judge and the same is dismissed. after considering the Union's contention canvassed by the appellant. (12) Sri.Kodoth Sreedharan, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit, that, the positive directions issued by the learned Single Judge to remove the Arch/Kamanam erected by the 3rd respondent in the writ petition would create communal violence, disturbance, etc. in the locality. If that is so, the District Administration, including the police authorities, would take appropriate proceedings to maintain law and order in the locality. If that is not done by them, they will be shirking not only Constitutional mandate and also other statutory provisions enacted by the State Government.. For that purpose, this Court need not have to entertain this Writ Appeal and annul the positive directions issued by the learned Single Judge. (13) The 3rd respondent is the person who had erected the Kamanam. Though he was served with the notice of the writ petition, he did not choose to appear before this Court. It is not the case of the appellant, that, it had directed the 3rd respondent to erect the Kamanam; nor is its case, that, the temple committee had spent any money for the purpose of erection of this W.A.No.2278 of 2008 - 5 - Kamanam. The persons, who had erected the Kamanam, have no objection, whatsoever, for removal of the Kamanam and, in fact, the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat and the Revenue Divisional Officer, taking into consideration the possible commotion that may be created if the Kamanam is allowed to stand, have issued positive directions to remove the Kamanam. In our opinion, in matters of this nature and in order to keep in tact the communal harmony of a place, such sort of positive directions require to be issued by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction. (14) In the above view of the matter, we do not see any error, whatsoever, in the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, which would call for our interference in appeal. Therefore, the Writ Appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer vku/dk Judge