IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 36633 of 2007(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.MOHANAN, KANNITTAYIL HOUSE, CHAVARA.P.O., KOLLAM-691 583. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. CHAVARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHAVARA.P.O., KOLLAM-691 583, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, CHAVARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHAVARA.PO., KOLLAM-691 583. 3. KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SASHTRA BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL (R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 36633 of 2007 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of February , 2008 JUDGMENT In this Writ Petition, the petitioner, who is desirous of establishing coir manufacturing unit within the area of the first respondent Panchayat challenges Exts.P3 and P6 orders of the Secretary of the Panchayat. Under Ext.P3, the Secretary of the Panchayat decides that it is not possible to assign door number to the industrial shed constructed by the petitioner, since the construction violates the Kerala Coastal Zone Regulations. Under Ext.P6 resolution, the Panchayat decides to refer the matter to the 3rd respondent – Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority. 2. Sri.K.Jaju Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was pursuant to the earlier decision of the Panchayat taken on 15.2.2007 that the building was constructed by the petitioner. A copy of that decision was placed before me and the decision is to the effect that permission can be granted to the petitioner for constructing the shed and also that the WPC No.36633/2007 2 Secretary can be authorised for issuance of licence in accordance with law. Substantial amounts have been expended and the machinery worth lakhs of rupees have been purchased, unless the building is numbered and the licence is issued for operating the unit, apart from the petitioner, 20 workers who are proposed to be engaged in the unit will also suffer, so submits Sri. Jaju Babu. 3. Sri.K.Harilal, the learned standing counsel for the Panchayat drew my attention to the order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3726/2003 and submitted that it has been held by the Supreme Court in unambiguous terms that the proper authority to decide the question as to whether a particular construction is in violation of the Coastal Zone Regulations and as to whether any construction can be permitted deviating from the Coastal Zone Regulations is the 2nd respondent authority. Since the matter has already been referred to that Authority, the Panchayat may not be directed to assign even a provisional number to the building which admittedly violates coastal Zone Regulations. 4. Sri.Jaju Babu, in response to the above submissions of WPC No.36633/2007 3 the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat, submitted that at least provisional number be assigned to the building lest the building should not stand the risk of being liable to be demolished as an illegal construction. 5. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the bar and in the light of the materials which are available before me, I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the Panchayat that the issue will have to be ultimately decided by the 3rd respondent who have already been moved in that regard by the 2nd respondent. At the same time, I feel that the Panchayat can be directed to assign provisional door number to the building pending decision by the 3rd respondent on the question as to whether construction is lawfully permissible for accommodating coir manufacturing unit. Accordingly, I dispose of this Writ Petition issuing the following directions: i). The 3rd respondent Authority is directed to take an Early decision on the request of the 2nd respondent whether the construction made by the petitioner is permissible for accommodating the proposed coir manufacturing unit. Decision, as directed above, will be taken by the 3rd respondent in any WPC No.36633/2007 4 Event within three months of receiving a copy of this judgment. ii). Subject to the decision to be taken by the 3rd respondent as above, the Panchayat will assign a provisional number to the building put up by the petitioner. It is however, made clear that assignment of provisional number will not confer the petitioner with any right for getting licence for the proposed coir manufacturing unit. The existence of the building itself will be dependant upon the decision to be taken by the 3rd respondent on the 2nd respondent's request. iii). Provisional number, as directed above, shall be assigned by the 2nd respondent to the building at the earliest and at any rate within two weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment. iv). It is also directed that before taking decision, 3rd respondent Authority will hear the petitioner as well as the Panchayat. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. dpk WPC No.36633/2007 5