IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2009 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30829 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MYTHEEN KUNJU ABDUL AZEEZ KUNJU, AGED 73 YEARS, S/O.MYTEEN KUNJU, AL-AMMEEN, KANICHENELLOOR, MUTTOM, HARIPPAD. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHEPPAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CHEPPAD. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHENGANNUR. 3. RAJAN, S/O.VASUDEVAN, VATTATHARA KIZHAKKATHIL, KANICHENELLOOR, MUTTOM, HARIPAD. R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.30829 of 2009-W = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of October, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.Notice to respondents 1 and 3 dispensed with preserving their right to seek for rehearing of this writ petition, if aggrieved. 2.The petitioner states that at the instance of the third respondent, the first respondent initiated proceedings and has concluded that the petitioner should cut down three coconut trees belonging to him. He says that the said proceedings have been taken without giving the petitioner any pre- decisional notice of hearing or any opportunity of hearing. He also states that all the trees may not have to be cut since as per the report of the Village Officer, one only among the trees is standing in a dangerous situation. Even for that, he says that the tree could sustain, if the WPC30829/09 -: 2 :- petitioner takes appropriate measure to ensure that the coconuts do not fall down. 3.All the aforesaid contentions, to my mind, do not survive the clear statements in Ext.P1 that the petitioner was given an opportunity of pre- decisional hearing by the Sub Committee that was constituted for that purpose and the petitioner was issued even a final decision on 17.7.2009. Petitioner through learned counsel states that he did not get a copy of the communication dated 17.7.2009 and he had no notice of the proceedings of the Sub Committee. 4.In so far as felling of trees is concerned, the decision to consider the same is with the Panchayat. In carrying out its duties and functions, the Panchayat can necessarily constitute a sub committee to hear the parties and to consider the grievances and objections. That is well available within the statutory format. The only restriction is for the Secretary WPC30829/09 -: 3 :- to issue such final orders because, the Secretary's jurisdiction is confined to pruning of overhanging trees. This position is also well settled by the different decisions of this Court. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is about 73 years of age and has expressed the desire to be heard by the competent authority, it is ordered that the enforcement of Ext.P1 will stand deferred for the time being provided the petitioner appears before the President of the Grama Panchayat on 3.11.2009 and seeks an opportunity of hearing be hors what is stated in Ext.P1. However, the right of the third respondent has also to be protected. If the Panchayat President and the Sub Committee decide to hear the petitioner notwithstanding the recitals in Ext.P1, it is appropriate to give him and the third respondent an opportunity. Yet, the entire proceedings shall be concluded within a period of two weeks from the date fixed for appearance of the petitioner, having regard to WPC30829/09 -: 4 :- the statements in Ext.P1 that the ensuing climate change may require expeditious disposal of the matter. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/301009