IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 30589 of 2003(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. MUHAMMED BASHEER, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL KAREEM, KAREEM MANZIL, PALAYAMKUNNU P.O VARKALA, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER RAHILA BEEVI, W/O.MUHAMMED BASHEER, KAREEM MANZIL, PALAYAMKUNU P.O., VARKALA. 2. RAHILA BEEVI, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. MUHAMMED BASHEER, KAREEM MANZIL, PALAYAMKUNU P.O., VARKALA. BY ADV. MR.B. MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. THE ELAKAMON GRAMA PANCHAYAT, AYROOR P.O., VARKALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N. SUDHA DEVI R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN, MR.P.M.JOSEPH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 30589/2003-N APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.B-1-932/99 DATED 07/05/2001 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B-1-932/99 DATED 25/05/2001 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE SKETCH. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.B-1-932/99 DATED 05/06/2001 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT O.P. NO. 256/2002 DATED NIL FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN O.P. NO. 256/2002 DATED 16/05/2003. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.19061/R.D2/08 DATED 17/03/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE NOTICE TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21/12/1999. EXT.R2(b): COPY OF THE NOTICE TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07/05/2001. EXT.R2(c): COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 2ND PETITIONER ON 19/05/2001. EXT.R2(d): COPY OF THE NOTICE TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05/06/2001.H //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.30589 OF 2003 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by Exhibit P6 order passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. The complaint raised by the petitioner before the Ombudsman was that the Panchayath has not assigned a number to the new building despite repeated requests. The Panchayath contended that there is violation of Section 220 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The learned Ombudsman considered the definition of building/sunshade therein and directed that on the petitioner demolishing that part of the projection in the outer wall which cannot be said to be a structural overhead and the Panchayath is directed to assign a number to the new building of the petitioner. W.P.(C) No.30589/2003 2 3. Mainly it is contended that the construction was prior to the coming into force of the above provision and therefore, Section 220(b) is not attracted. It is also contended that there is no notification in respect of the road in question. On the merits also it is contended that what is termed as a projection is only a portion of the sunshade which is permissible going by the provisions of Section 220 of the Act also. 4. Going by Exhibit P3, a rough sketch produced by the petitioner, the distance of the building from the road margin is 3.3 metres. The projection extends to 0.95cms. The building is even now not numbered because of the pendency of the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the Panchayath submitted that actually the petitioner has not approached the Panchayath so far. But, before any order could be passed, the petitioner approached the Ombudsman and invited an adverse order. 6. A reading of the order Exhibit P6 shows that the Ombudsman has considered the matter on merits and then came into a conclusion that the constructions may not fully comply with W.P.(C) No.30589/2003 3 the provisions of Section 220(b). Therefore, actually the Panchayath cannot be faulted for not numbering the building even as on today. The petitioner could have moved the Panchayath for appropriate action in the matter so that the Panchayath could have taken an appropriate decision after considering various aspects. 7. It is true that the portion of the sunshade which is permissible as per the provisions need not be demolished for the purpose of numbering the building. An inspection by the officers of the Panchayath will enable the Panchayath also to assess the situation. Therefore, for enabling the petitioner to approach the Panchayath, Exhibit P6 is quashed. The petitioner will file an appropriate application before the Panchayath seeking to number the building on which the Secretary of the Panchayath will initiate appropriate action in accordance with law and after considering various aspects including the fact that the building was constructed practically 9 years back and the petitioner was not able to use the building so far. The Secretary will take W.P.(C) No.30589/2003 4 appropriate action expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp