Alfa One Global Builders Pvt.Ltd vs The Secretary on 7 January, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 32732 of 2009(J)


1. ALFA ONE GLOBAL BUILDERS PVT.LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SECRETARY, EDAKKAD GRAMAPANCHAYAT
                       ...       Respondent

2. RAJEESH M., SECRETARY, EDAKKAD PANCHAYAT

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE

                For Respondent  :SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :07/01/2010

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                      ================
                   W.P.(C) NO. 32732 OF 2009 (J)
                  =====================

            Dated this the 7th day of January, 2010

                          J U D G M E N T

The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2, a

communication issued by the 1st respondent Panchayat requiring

the petitioner to stop further construction activities on the ground

that a public agitation is going on in the area. On an application

made by the petitioner, they were granted Ext.P1 series of

building permits, on the strength of which, construction activities

were going on. It would appear that for reasons of their own, the

2nd respondent started agitation which led the Panchayat to issue

Ext.P2 stop memo. On receipt of Ext.P2, petitioner sought its

revocation by filing Ext.P3, but was of no avail. It is therefore, the

writ petition is filed.

2. Counsel for the 1st respondent submits that it was only

on account of the reasons mentioned in Ext.P2 that the same was

issued. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, it is contended that the

proposal is to establish a concrete mixing plant and that if the

proposal materialises, that will result in acute shortage of water

and it was therefore that they resorted to agitation.

WPC 32732/09
:2 :

3. As at present, the petitioner has obtained necessary

building permits and if so, petitioner is entitled to proceed with

the construction. On the other hand, if the 2nd respondent or

anybody else is aggrieved by the construction, the first step is to

seek cancellation of the building permits instead of taking law into

their hands or compelling the Panchayat to issue an order in the

nature of Ext.P2. So long as Ext.P1 series of building permit

remains in force, Panchayat could not have issued Ext.P2 and for

that reason the same is illegal and is accordingly quashed.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp