IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2011 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33179 of 2011(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- BAYWATCH BEACH HOMES, CHERAI, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-683 514, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI. C.R.SHIBU. BY ADV. MR.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN MR.T.S.HARIKUMAR MR.K.JAGADEESH RESPONDENT: --------------- PALLIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, PALLIPURAM-683 514. BY ADV.MR.T.A.SHAJI, SC FOR RESPONDENT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 33179 of 2011(V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C7-2136/2008, DTD.27.3.09, OF THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P2 : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.C-650/11, DTD.11.11.11. EXT.P3 : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THIS PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT, DTD.28.11.2011. EXT.P4 : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B-10858/11, DTD.9.12.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL .... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.33179 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 13th day of December, 2011. J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P4 order and for a direction commanding the respondent to pass appropriate orders, after considering the facts stated in Ext.P3 and the dictum laid down in the decision reported in Alphonsa Streeder v. Pallippuram Grama Panchayath (2011 (3) KLT 49), within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 2. The petitioner is the owner of the building bearing No.IX/535 A & B. Ext.P1 is the copy of the order dated 27.3.2009 of the Director, Department of Tourism, Thiruvananthapuram, granting approval to the petitioner's restaurant conferring two star classification. The petitioner submits that some portions of the petitioner's building are roofed with tin sheets. Since the land is very near to sea most of the tin sheets get rusted every year and hence the petitioner wanted to change the said roofing by concreting it. According to the petitioner, since the said activity does not require sanction from the Panchayath, the petitioner has commenced the work. The petitioner had demolished the old roofing so as to make a new ::2:: W.P.(C).No.33179 Of 2011 concrete roofing. The respondent Panchayath issued Ext.p2 provisional order under Section 235W(1) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act stating that roof changing is an act in violation of the Building Rules. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Ext.P3 is the copy of the explanation dated 28.11.2011. 3. The respondent passed Ext.P4 order rejecting Ext.P3 petition stating that the constructions are in violation of Coastal Regulation Zone Notification. The petitioner submits that Ext.p4 order has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and is bad for non application of mind, that Ext.P4 is not a speaking order and was passed without hearing and affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It is pointed out that there is no violation of CRZ notifications since the work carried out is only a repair work and not construction or re- construction. 4. The petitioner also pointed out the decision reported in Alphonsa Streeder v. Pallippuram Grama Panchayath (2011 (3) KLT 49). This Court considered an identical case of roof changing and held that changing of 'asbestos roof' by 'concrete ::3:: W.P.(C).No.33179 Of 2011 roof' does not involve any increase in existing plinth area or FSI of the building and that it is only a repair of existing authorised structure and same cannot have any adverse effect with regard to scope and object of Coastal Zone Regulation Notification and norms prescribed therein. The decision referred above was passed in a case where the respondent therein is the same Panchayath as in the present case. Accordingly, Ext.P4 order is quashed. In the light of the contentions raised in the writ petition as noticed above and in the light of the decision referred above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent, Secretary of the Grama Panchayath to re-consider the matter and pass appropriate orders, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-