IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 W.P.(C).No.32434 of 2008(S) ---------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER:- -------------------- RAJU THOMAS, POOVATHEL HOUSE, NARAKAKKANAM POST, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------- 1. SECRETARY, VAZHATHOPPU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, IDUKKI. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI 3. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. PARATHODU ANTONY, MYPRAN HOUSE, CHERUTHONY, IDUKKI COLONY. R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL. R2 & R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN. R4 BY ADV.SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.)& SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.32434 of 2008-S ------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. A public spirited citizen is before us in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is styled as a Public Interest Litigation. In the writ petition filed, petitioner complains about the illegal construction on the Government land by the 4th respondent. (2). In the writ petition, it is alleged that, the 4th respondent is constructing a building complex in Government puramboke land for which the first respondent Panchayat had granted a building permit. It is further stated that, the area where the construction is being carried on is “Construction Free Zone” under the Idukki Township Area Development Scheme notified by the State Government. It is also stated that, due to political influence, the Panchayat has granted the building permit to the 4th respondent. It is further stated that, the Secretary to Government, Local Self Government Department has issued Ext.P1 communication, inter alia directing the Panchayat to take appropriate steps to cancel the W.P.C. No. 32434/2008 -2- building permit and also to take action against those officials who had permitted the construction. It is the further grievance of the petitioner that, in spite of Ext.P1 order passed by the Secretary to Government, Local Self Government Department, no action is being taken by the Grama Panchayat. (3). It is the further case of the petitioner, that, the alleged illegal construction is near to the Idukki Dam which is notified as “Construction Free Zone”. (4). The Grama Panchayat has entered appearance through learned counsel Sri.Manilal. The learned counsel, on instruction, would submit, that, the Secretary to the Grama Panchayat has cancelled the permit that was granted to the 4th respondent, pursuant to the orders passed by the Secretary to Government, Local Self Government Department (Ext.P1). Further, it is stated that, a notice under Section 235B of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act was issued by the Secretary on 9.7.2008 intimating the 4th respondent that they would demolish the illegal construction. It is also stated that, the 4th respondent, being aggrieved by the order of cancellation of permit passed on 29.6.2008, has preferred an appeal before the Panchayat Committee on 14.7.2008. The said appeal, we are told, is still pending consideration before the W.P.C. No. 32434/2008 -3- Panchayat Committee. It is further stated that the Panchayat Committee has not passed any interim orders in favour of the 4th respondent. (5). It is also brought to our notice that the Grama Panchayat has passed a resolution in their meeting held on 22.7.2008, and, in that resolution, they have taken a decision to request the State Government to re-consider the suggestions made by the Government. (6). Smt.Sumathy Dandapani, learned senior counsel appearing for the 4th respondent would submit, that, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Grama Panchayat, the 4th respondent has also preferred an appeal before the Panchayat Committee and the same is pending consideration. It is also stated that, the 4th respondent has borrowed huge amounts from financial institutions for the purpose of construction, and, if no decision is taken by the Panchayat Committee or by the State Government within a reasonable time, the 4th respondent will be put to irreparable injury and substantial loss, which cannot be compensated in terms of money on a later date. (7). A permit had been granted by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat permitting the 4th respondent to make construction in a “Construction Free Zone”. May be, on a complaint filed by the petitioner or persons similarly situated, the Secretary to Government, W.P.C. No. 32434/2008 -4- Local Self Government has passed Ext.P1 order directing the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to cancel the permit that was granted to the 4th respondent for construction of a multi-storied building in a residential area. (8). Pursuant to Ext.P1 order passed, the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat has taken steps to cancel the permit and has also issued a notice for demolition. The 4th respondent, being aggrieved by the cancellation of permit that was granted earlier by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat has preferred an appeal before the Panchayat Committee which is the appellate authority. (9). During the pendency of this appeal, the Grama Panchayat has passed a resolution requesting the State Government to re-consider its earlier decision made in Ext.P1. Though the resolution is dated 22.7.2008, the State Government has not taken any decision in the matter so far. (10). It is the specific allegation of the petitioner before this Court which is not denied by the first respondent, that, during the pendency of this proceedings, the 4th respondent is continuing with the construction. However, Smt.Sumathy Dandapani, learned senior counsel appearing for the 4th respondent would submit, that, after cancellation of W.P.C. No. 32434/2008 -5- the permit by the first respondent, no further construction is being carried on by the 4th respondent. (11). In our view, at this stage, till a decision is taken by the State Government pursuant to the resolution passed by the Grama Panchayat dated 22.7.2008, and, further, during the pendency of the appeal before the Panchayat Committee, the 4th respondent should be directed not to proceed with the construction, since the permit that was granted has already been cancelled by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. In that view of the matter, we pass the following: Order i). Writ Petition is disposed of. ii). The 4th respondent shall not make any further construction from today in the proposed site for which permit had been granted by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. iii). The State Government may take appropriate decision on the request made by the Grama Panchayat pursuant to the resolution dated 22.7.2008. iv). The Panchayat Committee, before whom the appeal filed by the 4th respondent is pending, will also consider the appeal on merits as expeditiously as possible. W.P.C. No. 32434/2008 -6- (12). We make it clear that, any observation made by us in the course of this order is only for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition and the observations made by us will not come in the way of the authorities in taking an independent decision in the matter. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS