IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2011 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13540 of 2011(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.K.HASSAN KOYA, S/O MAMUKOYA, SECRETARY, CHERUKULAM PALLI MADRASSAH PARIPALANA COMMITTEE, P.O.MAKKADA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.M. ASLAM. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, KAKKODI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673 611. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.13540 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is the Secretary of Cherukulam Palli Madrassah Paripalana Committee filed this Writ Petition seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext.P3 and to quash the same. According to the petitioner, the Cherukulam Masjid and Madrassah are wakf institutions. The petitioner applied before the first respondent on 21.8.2008 for grant of approval of the building plan and to issue building permit. Subsequently, Ext.P2 building permit was granted to the petitioner. Permission as per Ext.P2 was granted only for construction of a building for residential purpose. On the strength of Ext.P2 building permit, construction of the building was commenced. While the construction was going on, Ext.P3 stop memo was issued by the panchayat. Evidently, Ext.P3 stop memo was issued to the petitioner at the instance of some persons in the locality. It is challenging Ext.P3 that this Writ Petition has been filed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent and also the learned W.P.(C) NO.13540/2011 2 Government Pleader. 3. Evidently, Ext.P3 stop memo was issued on receipt of certain complaints carrying the allegation that on the strength of Ext.P2 building permit, the petitioner is constructing a mosque and not a building for residential purpose. The learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that consequently, a meeting was convened by the second respondent in which the petitioner and the Secretary of the panchayat participated. Even after such conciliation, the petitioner went on with the construction and it was in the said circumstances Ext.P3 was issued requiring the petitioner to stop construction and to produce a copy of the order passed by the second respondent, it is further submitted. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that a law and order situation was created when the petitioner attempted to construct a mosque on the strength of Ext.P2 building permit. A perusal of the contentions raised in this Writ Petition would undoubtedly show that the grievance of the petitioner pertains to the unnecessary intervention and issuance of Ext.P3 by the first respondent in carrying out construction of the building in question in accordance with Ext.P2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner intends to carry out W.P.(C) NO.13540/2011 3 construction of the building strictly in accordance with Ext.P2 building permit and also Ext.P1. So far, Ext.P2 building permit is not cancelled. In the said circumstances, according to the petitioner, he is entitled to continue with the construction strictly in accordance with Ext.P1plan and Ext.P2 building permit. The contentions raised on behalf of the respondents would suggest that the complaint was made on the apprehension that the petitioner is attempting to construct a mosque on the strength of Ext.P2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at no point of time, the petitioner had any intention to construct a mosque on the strength of Ext.P2 or to effect any construction in deviation from the conditions in Ext.P2 building permit. It is further submitted that the petitioner would carry out the construction strictly in accordance with Ext.P1 plan and Ext.P2. This is recorded. In view of the position obtained in this case, I am of the considered view that so long as Ext.P2 building permit has not been cancelled or modified, in accordance with law, there cannot be any impediment at all for the petitioner to carry out construction strictly in accordance with Ext.P1 plan and Ext.P2 building permit. Accordingly, Ext.P3 is set aside. However, in case the petitioner effects construction violating Exts.P1 and P2, it will be open to the first W.P.(C) NO.13540/2011 4 respondent to take appropriate action, in accordance with law. This Writ Petition is disposed of, accordingly. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.13540/2011 5 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.13540/2011 6