IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930 W.A.No. 1558 of 2008 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.19294/2008 DATED 26.6.2008 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN WP(C) ------------------------------------------------------ 1. PALLIYAN, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.KURUMBAN, MARIYIL HOUSE, PANCODE, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. ITTAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY, PERINGATTEL HOUSE, PANCODE, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. BIJU, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.ITTAN, PERINGATTIL HOUSE, PANCODE, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. BENNY, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.ULAHANNAN, PERINGATTEL HOUSE, PANCODE AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEPAN SRI.DEEPAK T.NEDUNGADAN SMT.P.SUMITHRA W.A.NO.1558 OF 2008 - 2 - RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, AIKKARANADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KADAYIRIPPU P.O., KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. FR.EDWARD GEORGE, VICAR, ST.JOHN'S ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH, PANCODE P.O., AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1558 of 2008 & I.A.No.659 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 25th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Appellants were the petitioners in the writ petition. They had filed the writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P8 and P9 orders issued by the District Collector and the Government respectively granting permission to establish a burial ground in the property belonging to the 4th respondent Church. According to the appellants, who are stated to be local residents, the burial ground in question is within the prohibited distance stipulated under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Burial and Burning Ground) Rules, 1998, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'. 2. In Ext.P8 order, the District Collector had considered the objections raised by the appellants. It was noticed by the District Collector that the District Medical Officer (Health) had recommended establishment of the burial ground “from the public health point of view” with certain conditions enumerated in his report. Those conditions have been extracted by the District Collector in Ext.P8 order. Similarly, the WA.No.1558 of 2008 2 Tahsildar, Kunnathunadu had also recommended establishment of the burial ground after conducting a local enquiry. It was after considering the above reports that the District Collector had directed the 4th respondent Church to publish the notice under Rule 6(7) of the Rules. 3. It is true that the appellants had raised objections. The District Collector had considered the objections raised by the appellants and perused the reports of the officers concerned. In this context, we may also notice that the Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam (Rural) was also consulted and his report was also considered by the District Collector. It was after an elaborate consideration of all the aspects of the matter that the District Collector had passed Ext.P8 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P8 order the appellants had filed appeal before the Government. Yet again, the Government had adverted to all the objections raised by the appellants and passed Ext.P9 order. 4. Having perused Exts.P8 and P9 orders, we do not find any procedural irregularity or illegality in the impugned orders. The Tahsildar in his report had categorically stated, as revealed from Ext.P8, that the nearest dwelling house (that of appellant No.1) was 26.1 mts. away and the nearest well was at a distance of 26.7 mts. The learned Judge after considering the contentions raised by the appellants with meticulous care, WA.No.1558 of 2008 3 has refused to exercise his discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We do not find any reason to take a different view in the matter. 5.Therefore, while affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the writ appeal is dismissed. 6. In view of the order passed in the writ appeal, the relief sought in I.A.No.659 of 2008 need not be considered at this stage. Therefore, the said application is dismissed. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns