IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 10893 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED SUHAIL M.
S/O.HAMSA,
MANJALUNGAL HOUSE, KALLADIPATTA P.O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 313
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
HAMSA M, S/O.HYDROSE,
AGED 65 YEARS, MANJALUNGAL HOUSE,
KALLADIPATTA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 313
BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 ONGALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PANCHAYAT OFFICE, ONGALLUR P.O, PATTAMBI,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 313
2 THE SECRETARY, ONGALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
PANCHAYAT OFFICE, ONGALLUR P.O.,
PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 313
BY ADV R.SREEHARI
SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 10893 OF 2022
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C).No. 10893 of 2022
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2022
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:
"(i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or other appropriate Writ, Orders or directions to call for the records leading up to Exhibit P-8 and to quash the same;
(ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writ, Orders or directions commanding the 2nd respondent to regularize the construction made by the petitioner by considering the request as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice;
(iii) Issue a writ to declare that the rejection of application for regularization of the construction made in the first floor of the building on the ground that the same violates Section 220(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 is per se illegal and arbitrary.
(iv) Render such other orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case."[SIC]
2. The main prayer in the writ petition is against WP(C) NO. 10893 OF 2022 3 Ext.P8 order. Ext.P8 is an order passed by the 2 nd respondent invoking the powers under the Kerala Panchayat Building (Regularization of Unauthorised Construction) Rules, 2018 (for short 'the Rules 2018'). Against Ext.P8 order as per Rule 10, there is a review possible before the Government. It will be better to extract Rule 10 of the Rules 2018.
"10. Review by Government. - (1) Any person aggrieved by an order issued under the provisions of these rules, may file a petition for review, to the Government.
Provided that there shall be only one review against any order issued.
(2) A petition for review under sub-rule(1) shall be presented within thirty days from the date of service of the order, allowing or rejecting the application by the Secretary.
(3) The review petition shall be in white paper typed or written in ink, affixed with court fee stamp worth rupees five, and the same shall be submitted along with the true copy of the order to be reviewed.
(4) When a petition for review has been presented under these rules, the Government may, if found necessary, stay the operation of the order, pending consideration of the petition.
(5) The Government shall, after reviewing the petition, pass appropriate orders thereon after hearing WP(C) NO. 10893 OF 2022 4 the petitioner and forward the same to the Secretary concerned, with copy thereof to the Town Planner.
(6) In case the review petition is rejected, the Secretary shall initiate action as provided under rule 9. " In the light of the same, I think the petitioner is free to file a review before the Government against Ext.P8. Since the petitioner approached this Court immediately after Ext.P8 order is passed, the Government will see that the review, if any filed within a time prescribed by this Court shall not be dismissed for the reason of delay.
Therefore this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:
i. The petitioner is free to file a review as per Rule 10 of the Rules 2018, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
ii. Once such a review is received from the petitioner by the additional 3rd respondent as directed above, the additional 3rd respondent will consider the WP(C) NO. 10893 OF 2022 5 same and pass appropriate orders in it in accordance to law.
iii. All the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are left open and the petitioner is free to raise all those contentions before the additional 3rd respondent.
iv. The petitioner will produce a copy of this writ petition along with a certified copy of this judgment before the additional 3rd respondent for compliance.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN DM JUDGE WP(C) NO. 10893 OF 2022 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10893/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.1736/2017 OF S.R.O.PATTAMBI DATED 01-08-2017. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 01-06-2020 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER ONGALLUR.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPTS FOR THE YEAR 2018-2019 AND 2019-2020.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.H4-
6988/19 DATED 26-11-2020 OF THE TAHSILDAR, PATTAMBI.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A4.4296/19 DATED 04-03-2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16-
02-2022 IN W.P.(C) NO.2595 OF 2022. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 28-02- 2022 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A4-4296/19
DATED 16-03-2022 OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE