IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2011 / 27TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 9515 of 2010(L) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. ST.MARY'S JACOBITE SYRIAN CHURCH, THENGODE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE, BABU KIZHAKKEDETH, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE VICAR, ST.MARY'S JACOBITE SYRIAN CHURCH, THENGODE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.ELDHO RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-30. 2. THRIKKAKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KAKKANAD P.O., COCHIN-30. 3. K.V.BALAKRISHNAN, 'SARADALAYAM', THENGODE P.O., KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SANJEETHA R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN, SC R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.ANILKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 9515 of 2010(L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE DOCUMENT VIDE NO. 3203 OF 2008 OF SRO THRIKKAKARA. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE PLAN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO. 4138494 DATED 17-03-2009. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO. 836/2009 DATED 23-03-2009. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.12.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : EXT.R3(a) : REPORT BY PANCHAYAT SECRETARY DATED 15/3/2010. EXT.R3(b) : REPORT BY INVESTIGATING OFFICER DATED 12/5/2010. EXT.R3(c) : ORDER BY HONOURABLE OMBUDSMAN DATED 20/5/2010. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 9515 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioners, they made Ext.P2 application for the reconstruction of a Chapel. That application is rejected by the first respondent as per Ext.P5. It is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The main ground on which the order is impugned is that it was passed without notice to the petitioners. This contention of the learned counsel is not disputed by the learned Government Pleader, who has obtained instructions in the matter. 3. Therefore I set aside Ext.P5 order and direct the first respondent to issue notice to petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 and pass fresh orders on Ext.P2. This, the first respondent shall do, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a W.P.(C) No. 9515 OF 20110 :2 : copy of this judgment. 4. It is clarified that the petitioners shall maintain the status quo in so far as the Chapel in question is concerned until orders are passed by the first respondent. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge