IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2008 / 9TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1681 of 2008(A) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. HARIDASAN, S/O. KANAKKARAI, AGED 42 YEARS, KANDAMPURAM HOUSE, ARUVAKKODE, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. MURALEEDHARAN, S/O. SAROJINI, AGED 27 YEARS, KARATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ARUVAKKODE, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL SMT.M.T.SHEEBA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE NILAMBUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. INFANT JESUS CHURCH, NILAMBUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICAR, FR. GEORGE KOLOTHUM VEETTIL. ADDL 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. IS IMPLEADED AS PER JUDGMENT DTD. 29-1-2008. BY ADV. SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE FOR R4 SRI.JOHN VIPIN SMT.S.A.SHERLY SMT.SAJITHA GEORGE SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.GEORGE THOMAS BY G.P.SRI K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR FOR R1, R2 & R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Pius C. Kuriakose, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 1681 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram is impleaded as Addl. 5th respondent. 2. Ext.P1 order of the District Collector sanctioning the concrete vault type cemetery for the 4th respondent church under rule 6(8) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules 1998 is under challenge in this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the contention raised is that statutory formalities have not been complied with by the 1st respondent District Collector and that Ext.P1 order has been passed virtually behind the back of the petitioners and others who are local residents. 3. Counter affidavits have been filed by respondents 1 and 3 and also by the 4th respondent church. In the counter affidavits these respondents refuted the allegations particularly to the effect that Ext.P1 order has been passed without complying with the statutory formalities WPC 1681/08 2 and procedure. The District Collector in his counter affidavit strongly supports his order and submits that the District Medical Officer of Health has reported that there were no dwelling houses, drinking water sources and other objectionable structures within 25 metres radius of the proposed cemetry and there was no chance to occur any public health problems. The recommendations of the District Medical Officer has been quoted by the District Collector in the counter affidavit. 4. Having considered the pleadings and the submissions addressed at the Bar, it will be noticed that I am not convinced that there has been any deviation from the statutory procedure by the 2nd respondent. However, the District Collector inter alia has contended that the petitioner has alternative remedy under the statute as per sub- rule(10) of rule 6 by way of appeal to the Government. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition relegating the petitioner to such appellate remedy. If the petitioner prefers an appeal within three weeks from today before the Addl. 5th respondent, the Addl. 5th respondent will dispose of that appeal in accordance with law at the earliest, at any rate within six weeks of registering the appeal. The church shall be made a respondent in the appeal. Pius C. Kuriakose, Judge. WPC 1681/08 3 mn.