IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 5596 of 2008(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SIVADASAN V., S/O.VELUTHA, AGED 59 YEARS, CHIRAYIL VELI, KODAMTHURUTHU, KUTHIYATHODU P.O., CHERTHALA - 688 533. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KODAMTHURUTH GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KODAMTHURUTH, KUTHIYATHODU P.O., CHERTHALA. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. N.BABY DEVADAS, W/O.DEVADAS, THUNDUCHIRAYIL, KODAMTHURUTH, KUTHIYATHODU P.O., CHERTHALA - 688 533. 4. T.D.SREEDEVI, W/O.DEVARAJAN, THUNDUCHIRAYIL, KODAMTHURUTH, KUTHIYATHODU P.O., CHERTHALA - 688 533. 5. DEVARAJAN, THUNDUCHIRAYIL, KODAMTHURUTHU, KUTHIYATHODU P.O. CHERTHALA - 688 533. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.SWAMINATHAN SRI.S.DILEEP SRI.FELIX.K.J. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI MOHD.ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W.P.(C).No.5596/2008-N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext.P2 order issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat is under challenge mainly on the ground that the order is beyond the jurisdictional competence of the Secretary of the Panchayat. The judgment in Thankamma v. Ezhumattur Grama Panchayat [2001 (2) KLT 596] is relied on. A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent and Ext.R3(b) photograph is relied on. Another photograph is shown across the bar. The third respondent is directed to produce the document before this Court. 2. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that going by the principles laid down by this Court in Thankamma's case, it may have to be found that an order in the nature of Ext.P2 can be passed only by the committee of the Panchayat. Referring to Ext.R3(b), the learned counsel submitted that the tree in question is standing in a dangerous condition, i.e. slanting on to the roof of the third respondent's building and there is risk of the tree falling down any moment and causing danger not only to the building but also to the inhabitants of the building. The learned Government Pleader, Sri Mohammed Anzar would submit that the W.P.(C).No.5596/2008-N 2 Panchayat Secretary came to pass Ext.P2 in the wake of a direction to him by the Revenue Divisional Officer. A complaint was filed before the Chief Minister and the hon'ble Chief Minister forwarded the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer, who, after obtaining a report from the Vigilence Officer, was convinced about the correctness of the complaint and accordingly, issued a direction to the Secretary. 3. Having considered the rival submissions addressed by the bar, I am of the opinion that in view of the judgment in Thankamma's case, Ext.P2 has to be found outside the jurisdictional competence of the Secretary of the first respondent Panchayat. I, accordingly, quash Ext.P2 and direct the first respondent to place the complaint of the third respondent before the committee of the Panchayat in the next meeting of the committee. The committee of the Panchayat will ensure that a fresh decision is taken on the question whether the tree belonging to the petitioner should be cut down after hearing the petitioner and the third respondent. It is also made clear that this judgment does not amount to expression of any opinion about the powers of the second respondent under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, Judge ms