IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 32381 of 2007(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THE SECRETARY, ELAVALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENTS: ------------- ST.SEBASTIAN HIGH SCHOOL, CHITTATTUKARA, ELAVALLY PANCHAYATH, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, FR.PAULSON PALATHINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No. 32381 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Under challenge in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, is Ext.P8 order passed by the Tribunal allowing the appeal filed by the manager of the respondent school against the stop memo issued by the Panchayat. The Kerala Municipality's Building Rules were extended to the petitioner Panchayat and for that matter to most of the Panchayats in the State only by Government notification- Ext.P1. In clarification of the notification, the Government issued Ext.P3 circular and as per clause 3 of Ext.P3, it is obligatory on the part of local authorities to keep a register in Appendix 8 regarding the stage of construction of the buildings constructed after 01/03/2007, whether it be on the strength of NOC or otherwise. As per clause 5 of Part II of Ext.P3, in the case of those constructions commenced on the strength of NOC, there is necessity to obtain a permit under the Kerala Municipalities Building Rules only if the construction has not WPC.No.32381/07 2 proceeded beyond the ground level. The stand of the Panchayat in Appendix 8 as well as on the basis of the inspection report was that as on the date of Ext.P3, construction had not proceeded beyond the ground level. The respondent had only taken necessary trenches as well as pits for commencing the construction. 2. Case of the respondent per contra was that as on the date of Ext.P3, the first floor had been constructed and therefore there was no necessity to take out a building permit in terms of the Kerala Municipalities Building Rules. The matter was considered by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has passed Ext.P8 order holding that as on the date of Ext.P3, the construction had proceeded beyond the ground level and hence there is no necessity for the respondent to take out a building permit. In that view of the matter, the appeal was allowed and the stop memo issued by the Panchayat was set aside by the Tribunal. 3. It was very strenuous arguments which were addressed before me by Sri.Santhosh.P.Poduval, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri.Santhosh.P.Poduval submitted that the learned Tribunal was carried away by the documents produced by the respondents WPC.No.32381/07 3 particularly the photographs pertaining to two burials which took place in the church cemetery. The Panchayat had taken very serious objection to the reception of these photographs in evidence. These photographs had not been properly proved and therefore it cannot be said that the photographs constituted legal evidence in the case. Reliance placed by the Tribunal on the photographs was not justified. 4. Sri.Rejith, learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary would justify Ext.P8. Apart from drawing my attention to the photographs, the learned counsel drew my attention to various the circumstances attending on the case and the other documents which had been produced on the side of the respondents. I have gone through Ext.P8. It is seen that the findings entered in Ext.P8 by the Tribunal that at the time when Ext.P3 circular was promulgated by the Government, the construction has proceeded beyond the level of the ground is a finding based on evidence. It is seen that the issue has been explored in the realm of probabilities also by the learned Tribunal. It cannot be said that the findings are not based on any evidence. In short, having regard to the parameters which WPC.No.32381/07 4 are applicable to the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227, it is not possible to say that Ext.P8 is vitiated to the extent of justifying interference under that jurisdiction. The jurisdiction under Article 227 is visitorial in nature and will be exercised only if this court is able to say that the findings are wholly unreasonable in the sense order the Tribunal is not founded on any evidence at all, or that it plainly violates law or that the same can be branded as a perverse one. Having regard to the contours and nature of the jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 and 227, I do not find any warrant to interfere with Ext.P8. Challenge against Ext.P8 fails and the Writ Petition will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.32381/07 5