IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 33214 of 2007(D) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- J.ABRAHAM, S/O.JOHN, AGED 51 YEARS, PARAPPAT HOUSE, PALAKUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 686. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE PALAKUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PALAKUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 686. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOOTHATTUKULAM POLICE STATION, KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. T.G.SOMAN, S/O.GOPALAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, THANDEL HOUSE, ILLIKUNNU, PALAKKUZHA PO., 686 686. R1BY ADV. SRI.N.K.KARNIS SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 33214 OF 2007 ----------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 11TH JANUARY, 2008 J U D G M E N T Under challenge in this writ petition is Ext.P4 order/notice of the first respondent Panchayat directing the petitioner to remove the constructions effected by him by the side of Thodupuzha-Koothattukulam road on the ground that the construction violates Section 220(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. A statement has been filed by the Panchayath and the party respondent has filed a counter affidavit also. 2. I have heard the submissions of Mr.Biju Abraham, learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the party respondent and counsel for the Panchayath as also the learned Government Pleader. 3. The issue that arises is whether the road by which the construction has been made by the petitioner is a road covered by Section 220(b) of the Panchayath Raj Act. Admittedly, the road is not National Highway. It is to be ascertained whether it is State Highway or a District road. The learned counsel for the WP(C)No. 33214/2007. -2- petitioner asserts that it is either a State Highway or a District road. Even if it is not a State Highway or a District road, all public roads within the area of the Panchayath (road in question is obviously a public road) notified by the Panchayath will also be covered by Section 220(b) of the Act. I had occasion to consider the issue in Thomas Paul v. State of Kerala, 2007 (1)K.L.T.267. Since it is not indicated in the order that the above judgment has been considered by the Panchayath in passing Ext.P4, I quash Ext.P4 and direct the Panchayath to consider the issue and pass fresh orders at the earliest. While passing fresh orders as directed by the Panchayath which will be done only after hearing the petitioner and the third respondent, the Panchayath will ascertain by verifying with the competent authorities as to whether the road in question is a State Highway or a District road. If it is seen that the road is not a State Highway or a District road, then the Panchayath will verify whether any notification as regards this road for the purpose of Section 220(b) of the Panchayath Raj Act has been issued by the Panchayath by publication in Gazette as indicated in the WP(C)No. 33214/2007. -3- judgment in Thomas Paul v. State of Kerala, 2007(1) K.L.T.267. Orders on the basis of the hearing to be conducted as directed above shall be passed by the Panchayath at the earliest, at any rate within six weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment. If the order of the Panchayath is in favour of the petitioner, the second respondent will render necessary assistance to the petitioner for completing the construction of the building. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) ks. WP(C)No. 33214/2007. -4- WP(C)No. 33214/2007. -5-