Babujan S vs Chirakkadavu Grama Panchayath
2022 Latest Caselaw 1237 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
        FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 8TH MAGHA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 18791 OF 2015
PETITIONERS:

            BABUJAN S.
            AGED 44 YEARS
            FAMY MANZIL, KUNNAMBHAGAM, KANJIRAPALLY PO, KOTTAYAM
            DISTRICT
            BY ADVS.
            SRI.ESM.KABEER
            AMINA BEEVI
            SRI.M.S.JAYAKRISHNAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1       CHIRAKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PONKUNNAM PO, KOTTAYAM
            DISTRICT 686506
    2       THE SECRETARY
            CHIRAKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PONKUNNAM PO, KOTTAYAM
            DISTIRCT 686506

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.18791 of 2015                    2




                                     JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Exhibit P6 notice

issued by the Secretary of the Chirakkadavu Grama Panchayat - 2 nd respondent

herein, directing the petitioner to remove septic tank constructed in violation of

rule 92(4) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011.

2. On a perusal of Exhibit P6, what I could gather is that the Secretary has

pointed out that there is an illegal construction made by the petitioner and if it is

not removed, the Secretary would take action in contemplation of section

235W(2)(3) & (4) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Admittedly, petitioner

has submitted Exhibit P7 objection to the same and apprehending any coercive

action, the writ petition was filed.

3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri.E.S.M.Kabeer and

perused the pleadings and materials on record.

4. In my considered opinion, in Exhibit P6, the Secretary of the Grama

Panchayat has only said that if the petitioner is not demolishing the alleged

illegal construction, he would take llegal action in terms of section 235W of the

Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Apparently, petitioner has submitted Exhibit P7

reply. In that view of the matter, I do not think the Secretary of the Grama

Panchayat would proceed against the petitioner without complying with the

procedure in contemplation of section 235W of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act,

1994.

Anyhow, since Exhibit P7 is pending, there will be a direction to the

Secretary to consider Exhibit P7 before proceeding as is stated in Exhibit P6

notice, after providing a notice of hearing to the petitioner.

Sd/-

                                                        SHAJI P. CHALY
smv                                                         JUDGE



                           APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18791/2015

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

P1:TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 19.03.2012 P2:TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DATED 16.12.2013 P3:TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DATED 16.12.2013 P4:TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.12.2013 P5:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DATED 30.05.2014 P6::TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05.06.2015 P7:TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.06.2015