IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2009 / 24TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 22080 of 2007(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- A.C.ALI, ARANGALI VEEDU, PANTHEERANKAV (PO), KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM SRI.ANOOP U.R. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, PERUMANNA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PERUMANNA, KOZHIKODE. 2. P.K.MARIYAM, PARASSERYKUZHI VEEDU, CHERUVANNOOR (P.O.), KOZHIKODE. 3. THE OMBUDSAMN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVT. INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR FOR R2 SRI.THOMAS ANTONY FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.SUNILKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.22080/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT DT 23.2.2007. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN OP NO.183/07 DT 16.5.2007. EXT.P4: TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF the TIN SHEETED ROOF. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE/ORDER DT 7.7.2007. EXTS. OF R1 EXT.R1(a): A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIOENR AND SRI.P.I.ASSANKOYA, DT 15.7.2007 AND RECEIVED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 16/7/2007. EXT.R1(b): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER AND P.I.ASSANKOYA DT 3.8.2007. EXTS. OF R2 EXT.R2(1): PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIOENR SHOWING ALLFOUR SIDES OF THE PETITIONERS BUILDING WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS WRIT PETITION. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 22080 OF 2007 (C) ===================== Dated this the 16th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P3 and P5. According to the petitioner, in a building where a Madrassa is established, they erected a temporary tin sheet roofing on the southern and eastern side of a building, against which, the 2nd respondent, the adjacent property owner, lodged a false complaint. It is stated that on receipt of the complaint, the 1st respondent inspected the property and found the allegations baseless. However, the 2nd respondent approached the 3rd respondent, who issued Ext.P3 directing demolition and that thereupon the Panchayat issued Ext.P5 requiring the petitioner to demolish the so called unauthorised construction. It was at that stage the writ petition was filed. 2. On the other hand, what is disclosed in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent Panchayat and the 2nd respondent is that the building in question was constructed as a commercial building, a portion of which has been later converted into a Madrassa. Panchayat states that without obtaining any WPC 22080/07 :2 : permit as required under the Building Rules, roof was erected over a portion of the building and complaint was received from the 2nd respondent. It is stated that on inspection, the allegations were found to be true and notice was issued calling upon the owner of the building to demolish the unauthorised construction. It is stated that subsequently, after enquiry, notice was confirmed. But despite that, the direction was not complied with. It was at that stage the 2nd respondent moved the 3rd respondent and by Ext.P3, the 3rd respondent has only directed implementation of the order, which was already issued by the Panchayat. Panchayat submits that in implementation of the order passed by the 3rd respondent, they issued Ext.P5. 3. Panchayat also points out that during the pendency of the writ petition, communication was received from the owner of the building praying for regularisation of the construction. It is stated that the request was not in compliance with the provisions of Building Rules and was rejected by Ext.R1(b) order dated 3/8/07. 4. Thus, what is disclosed in the pleadings is that an unauthorised construction was put up, Panchayat after enquiry WPC 22080/07 :3 : directed its demolition and the ombudsman has only directed the Panchayat to implement its decision. Subsequently, request made for regularisation also has been rejected by the Panchayat. 5. It is also evident from the pleadings that the order passed by the Panchayat and the order of the Panchayat rejecting the request for regularisation have not been challenged and have become final. In such circumstances, no fault can be found with Ext.P3 order passed by the Ombudsman or Ext.P5 order passed by the Panchayat directing demolition of the building. In these circumstances, there is absolutely no merit in this writ petition. It is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp