IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2009 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 34313 of 2008(I) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. S.PRASANTH, NADUVILADATH, KARUKACHAL P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. RAVINDRANATH, MANGLAMKUNNU HOUSE, KARUKACHAL P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.JAGADEESH LAKSHMAN SRI.A.R.GANGADAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE & ECONOMY, NEW DELHI. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE SECRETARY, KARUKACHAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KARUKACHAL P.O., KOTTAYAM. 5. K.P.SAMUEL, PONPUZHA BUILDINGS, KARUKACHAL P.O., KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R2 SRI.V.K.SUNIL FOR R5 SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY FOR R4 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 34313 OF 2008 (I) ===================== Dated this the 30th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The grievance in this writ petition is regarding a Church that is being set up by the 5th respondent in a property belonging to him, which according to the petitioners is in the close vicinity of their residential houses. Counsel contends that the work undertaken is the construction of a new church and that the same offends Ext.P1 GO(P) No.9/02/Home dated 16th January 2002. Yet another contention that is raised by the counsel for the petitioners is by making reference to Ext.P6, by which, according to the petitioners, building permit has since been cancelled by the 4th respondent Panchayat. In so far as Ext.P6 is concerned, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the 5th respondent is that there already existed a church and the work now undertaken is the reconstruction of the existing building. This contention is sought to be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. In so far as Ext.P6 is concerned, both Panchayat and the 5th respondent submits that the said order reflects only a temporary suspension of the building permit. It is also their case WPC 34313/08 :2 : that the 5th respondent has already approached the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions by filing an appeal and that the said order has since been stayed by the Tribunal. 3. In view of the above, the only issue that arises for consideration is whether in the process of the work undertaken by the 5th respondent, he is violating the provisions of the Government Order. As already stated, while the petitioners contend that it is a new church which is being constructed, the case of the respondents is that what is undertaken is only the reconstruction of an existing church and that in such a situation, Ext.P5 is inapplicable. 4. In my view, that is purely a disputed question of fact involving a dispute between two private individuals, which has to be resolved in an appropriate proceedings before a Civil Court and not in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp