IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2009 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1931 WP(C).No. 13285 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. B.JIJITH, JIJITH BHAVAN, MADAPPALLY COLLEGE, VADAKARA. 2. S.K.SUJITH, S/O.KUNHIKANNAN, MATHA BHAVAN, AZHIYOOR, MADAPPALLY COLLEGE, VADAKARA. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.K.JAGADEESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. AZHIYUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, AZHIYOOR P.O. 2. KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SASTHRA BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.13285 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT 1. Having regard to the nature of the order being issued hereunder, notice to the respondents dispensed with, preserving their right to move for review of this judgment, if aggrieved. 2.The petitioners applied for licence to build. The Grama Panchayat issued Exts.P4 and P5 on different counts. In Ext.P4, certain deficiencies were noticed. Ext.P5 relates to a particular stand of the Panchayat, viz., that the petitioners have to obtain exemption from the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority. According to the petitioners, they have rectified the defects noted in Ext.P4. In so far as the objection contained in Ext.P5 is concerned, their stand is that what is sought for is a permit for renovation of an existing structure and that this does not require any permission from the second respondent authority since such activity does not WPC.13285/09 Page numbers fall within the prohibitions contained in Ext.P6 enumerating different restrictions in the form of a draft proposal. It is also stated that there is no such restriction in the original CRZ notification. The existence or otherwise of any such restriction and the existence of a building which is sought to be re-built or renovated as contended by the petitioners are matters that could be easily looked into by the statutory authorities under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act when the application is further considered. It is for the petitioners to seek an opportunity of hearing before the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to demonstrate to him that CRZ regulations do not contain any prohibition against renovating or re-building a structure. In so far as the existence of a building, as contended by the petitioners, is concerned, that is a question of fact, any dispute of which has also to be resolved through the statutory channel, particularly when there is a Tribunal to decide on any controversies in that regard. WPC.13285/09 Page numbers 3.In the aforesaid circumstances, it is directed that if the petitioners re-submit the plan, rectifying the defects which are rectifiable according to them, and state their stand as regarding the contents of Ext.P5, the Secretary of the first respondent Grama Panchayat will hear the petitioners or their representative and take a decision thereon without delay. Let such a decision follow within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the request of the petitioners. It is further ordered that if the decision is against the interest of the petitioners, the Secretary shall state reasons for such decision in the order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.21/5.