IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 12602 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ODAN VALAPPIL USHA,D/O.GOVINDAN, KANIYANCHAL,KARUVANCHAL.PO,VELLAD AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. ODAN VALAPPIL VIJAYA,D/O.GOVINDAN, KANIYANCHAL,KARUVANCHAL.PO,VELLAD AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. ODAN VALAPPIL VIJAYA,D/O.GOVINDAN, KANIYANCHAL,KARUVANCHAL.PO,VELLAD AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. ODAN VALAPPIL LATHA,D/O.GOVINDAN, KANIYANCHAL,KARUVANCHAL.PO,VELLAD AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. ODAN VALAPPIL SUNILKUMAR,S/O.GOVINDAN, KANIYANCHAL,KARUVANCHAL.PO,VELLAD AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI SRI.V.A.SATHEESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY,NADUVIL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NADUVIL.PO,KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,VELLAD VILLAGE OFFICE,KARUVANCHAL.PO,ALAKODE VIA,KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GP MATHEW VADAKKEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 12602 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF MAY, 2009 JUDGMENT Notice to respondents dispensed with, preserving their right to move for review of this judgment, if aggrieved. 2. According to the petitioners, they have a two-storeyed building in a piece of land within the limits of Naduvil Grama Panchayat, in Vellad Village. The petitioners constructed the third storey of that building and state that they have applied for allotment of building nos. They allege that the first respondent is delaying the numbering of that portion by calling for production of site plan and location sketch from the Village Officer. The petitioners have no case that they have produced the site plan and location sketch. Instead, they have filed this writ petition on the strength of Ext.P5 government circular, which states that if a road is widened after construction of the building and if the set back of the building from the boundary of the road is reduced by reason of such widening of the road, that could not be a reason for not numbering the building, Still further, the petitioners state that the rooms in two floors have been numbered and it is WP(C)12602/2009 2 irrational to take the view that the third floor cannot be numbered. 3. The first respondent, Secretary of the panchayat has not issued any decision refusing to number the building. He has only called for the production of the site plan and location sketch. The petitioners' wisdom may advise them to state that location sketch and site plan may be unnecessary to number the rooms in the third floor, but a statutory authority cannot be tied down to such wisdom if he decides to ensure that records are complete before any decision is taken. If ultimately, the first respondent refuses to number the building, he has to issue a decision showing the reasons for doing so. In such event, the petitioners may have a right of statutory relief before the competent statutory authorities in accordance with the relevant statutes. Therefore it is directed that if the petitioners produce the site plan and the location sketch, the first respondent shall take a decision on the request of the petitioners for numbering the second floor of the building within a period of one month therefrom. 4. However, the petitioners state that the second respondent, Village Officer has not issued the location sketch and the site plan. In fact the petitioners seek relief NO.3 in the writ petition as a direction to the second respondent to do so. WP(C)12602/2009 3 However, the fact remains that the petitioners have not made any application to the second respondent for the issuance of the location sketch and site plan. In answer to the query by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners approached the Village Officer, who in turn, has verbally refused their request. The official functions of a Government and its officers are carried out through files. The application and the decision on it has to be reflected on paper. It is not a transaction to be carried out by the words of mouth. Therefore if the petitioners need the location sketch or site plan as issued by the Village Officer, they have to duly apply for it and complain only if Village Officer refuses or fails to act on that application. Such complaints cannot be raised even before showing that a written application in the appropriate manner has been made. If the petitioners apply to the second respondent for issuance of site plan and location sketch, such application would be received and appropriately acted upon. All other issues left open. Writ petition ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/27/5