IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 8637 of 2010(D) ------------------------- {O.S.NO.60/10 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERATTUPETTA} PETITIONER(S): --------------- SEBASTIAN STANESLAVOURS AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.SEBASTIAN RESIDING AT PERUMNILATHU HOUSE, ARUVITHARA P.O.,ERATTUPETTA. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE ADDL CHIF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLCIE, ERATTUPETTA,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. SAJI JOSEPH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH RESIDING AT VELIMATTATHIL, MES JUNCTION ERATTUPETTA. 5. SEBASTIAN SEBASTIAN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O.SEBASTIAN, 40 YEARS, PARUTHYIL, CHEMALAMATTOM ERATTUPETTA. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 6 TO 9 WP(C).No. 8637 of 2010 :: 2 :: 6. SRI.M.S.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O.SHANKARA PILLA, MUTTATHU HOUSE, ERATTUPETTA VILLAGE. 7. SRI.P.K.SASIKUMAR, S/O.KRISHNA PILLA, POOTHANAL HOUSE, ERATTUPETTA VILLAGE. 8. SRI.K.C.KRISHNA PILLA, S/O.CHINNA THAMPI, KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ERATTUPETTA VILLAGE. 9. ERATTUPETTA GRAMA PANCHAYAT REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O.ERATTUPETTA. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.MANU R6 & R7 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV R9 BY ADV. SRI.V.K.MOHAMMED YOUSUF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 8637 of 2010 :: :: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN APPEAL NO.412/2009 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 27.6.2009. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE OF THE ERATTUPETTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 2.11.2009 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE ERATTUPETTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE SURRENDER APPLICATION DATED 7.11.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.BA- 162/09-10 DATED 7.11.2009 TO THE PETITIONER BY THE ERATTUPETTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 8.3.2010 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.60/1020 FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERATTUPETTA. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.237/1984 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PALA. EXT.P9: THE SURVEY PLAN IN THE O.S.NO.237/1984 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PALA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R8(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION IN O.S.NO.240/2008. WP(C).No. 8637 of 2010 :: :: EXT.R8(B): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM BY RESPONDENT NO.6 & 7 AND OTHER OFFICE BEARERS. EXT.R8(C): COPY OF THE PLAN OF ANGALAMMANKOVIL ROAD. //true copy// P.S. To Judge SK/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.8637 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. Petitioner is fully prepared to carry on with the construction of a commercial building aside the Erattupetta-Pala road. Alleging that respondents 4 and 5 are causing obstruction and the police have to interfere in the matter, he sought for directions and filed this writ petition against additional respondents including the local Grama Panchayat, who have been brought on record. 2. As of now, it appears that O.S.No.60/10 was filed before the Munsiff's Court, Erattupetta by some of the respondents. They ultimately failed in obtaining an order of temporary injunction from the Munsiff's Court. 3. As of now, they appealed against that decision and the Sub Court, Pala has granted an interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo. That order is issued as a interlocutory order in C.M.A.No.7/2010. It appears that the said order was passed on the W.P.(C)No.8637 of 2010 :: 2 :: day when the courts were closing for mid-summer vacation. 4. It is also submitted that the panchayat has, in the meantime, decided to withdraw the sanction granted by it to the petitioner. The said decision is sought to be impeached, though not challenged in pleadings, by pointing out that the panchayat, its committee, Secretary and other authorities would be wholly without jurisdiction in carrying out any such exercise in view of Section 167(7) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The panchayat authorities did not have the power or jurisdiction to take any such decision recalling the permit already granted. We caution ourselves that what is before us is only a writ petition generated on the premise that the police authorities are not acting in accordance with law to take appropriate action in terms of the statutes including Code of Criminal Procedure and the Kerala Police Act, as may be called for to protect the person and property of W.P.(C)No.8637 of 2010 :: 3 :: the petitioner. We are of the considered view that the said writ petition cannot be grown into a litigation where all disputed questions are to be decided in one go. 5. As of now, the Sub Court, Pala has necessarily to expedite the final hearing of C.M.A.No.7/2010 because the petitioner is fully prepared to carry on the construction of a commercial building. He cannot be kept waiting without answering the disputes in an urgent manner. The petitioner's commercial interest is also a matter that has necessarily to weigh with the court in expediting the matter. 6. Insofar as the decision of the panchayat is concerned, it would be open to the petitioner to seek relief from the competent authority, statutory or constitutional, as may be advised, with due regard to the alternate remedy that is available to the petitioner. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is ordered as follows: (a) Respondents 1 to 3 will ensure that there is no there is no law and order W.P.(C)No.8637 of 2010 :: 4 :: situation or any manner of destruction of property as claimed by the petitioner. (b) It shall also be ensured that adequate protection is provided to the person of the petitioner and any unlawful act reported in relation to the property or person shall be looked into and action, if any, found necessary, is taken promptly. (c) The Sub Court, Pala will take up C.M.A.No.7/10 out of turn and expeditiously consider it and dispose it of at the earliest. (d) It is clarified that the question regarding the sustainability of the panchayat decision is left open. (e) It is further clarified that this judgment does not express any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions on facts and law. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN) JUDGE Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//