IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2011 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9060 of 2011(F) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SARAMMA SEBASTIAN,CHIRAYIL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR - 686 631. BY ADVS. SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR SMT.CHINCY GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. ETTUMANOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, ETTUMANOOR, PIN- 686 631 2. C.K.GOPI, SIVAS HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR PO, PIN 686 631. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No.9060 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who is the owner in possession of 4.62 cents of land comprised in Survey Nos.18/11 & 18/12 of Ettumanoor Village, filed this writ petition challenging Exhibit P6 and P6(a). As per Exhibit P6 dated 15.3.2011, the petitioner was required to stop all unauthorized constructions and to demolish the same. Exhibit P6(a) is, in fact, a prior notice dated 03.12.2010, whereby he was required to stop unauthorized constructions and was cautioned of coercive steps in case of continuation with unauthorized construction in terms of the provisions of Panchayat Raj Act and Kerala Building Rules. 2. Exhibits P6 and P6(a) are being attacked mainly on the ground of vagueness. I may, firstly examine the said issued. Obviously, as per Exhibits P6 and P6(a) the petitioner was directed to stop the unauthorized construction and required to demolish the already finished constructions and warned of demolition of unauthorized construction, in case of his failure to bring them down on his own. W.P(C) No. 9060 of 2011 -2- There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position of any notice carrying such directions and caution should be specific not only on the details of constructions, but also, on the details of the provisions alleged to have been violated. The quintessential element of any such notice is that it should be capable of communicating to the concerned person precisely on the aforesaid matters. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the authority of the first respondent. As already noticed herein before, apart from making a statement that there are unauthorized constructions carried out or carrying on, there is nothing in Exhibits P6 and P6(a), which would specifically mentioned regarding the specified unauthorized construction which the petitioner had effected and what exactly is the provision that was violated by the petitioner. 3. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. Normally, this Court would issue notice to the respondents on a matter like this. However, I am of the considered view that even on affidavits by respondents cannot improve the situation and that apart, in view of the order I propose to pass in this W.P(C) No. 9060 of 2011 -3- writ petition, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the respondents. I view of the aforesaid ground, Exhibits P6 and P6(a) are quashed. It is made clear that this will not stand in the way of first respondent to issue fresh notice, in accordance with law, and also to take appropriate action in this matter adhering to the provisions of law. Since, the matter is being disposed of at this admission stage, Registry shall forward a copy of this judgment to the first respondent, forthwith. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE KRK