Shaffique, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court in the form of a public interest litigation seeking the following reliefs:
“i) to call for the records leading to Exhibit P2 and quash the same by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order;
ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondents 1 to 4 to remove the unauthorised construction as noted in Exhibits P3, P4, P7 and P9 forthwith and recover the cost of removing the unauthorised construction from the 4th and 5th respondents and other Government Officials who were supporting the unauthorised construction.”
2. The main contention urged by the petitioner is with reference to the inaction on the part of the Panchayat in not taking appropriate action to remove the unauthorised construction as noted in Exts. P3, P4, P7 and P9. Petitioner had also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 29.09.2009 in SLP No.8519 of 2006 wherein Supreme Court had taken note of the letter issued by Assistant Solicitor General of India to the Home Secretary of all the States which inter alia reads as follows;
“no unauthorised construction shall be carried out or permitted in the name of Temple, Church, Mosque or Gurudwara etc. on pubic streets, public parks or other public places etc.”
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that despite abundance of reports available in the case with the Panchayat, the observation made by Supreme Court with reference to the construction of religious places in Government lands, no action has been taken by the Panchayat. In fact this is a case in which earlier the party respondents, who made the construction, had approached this Court seeking police protection. The said writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated 10.11.2014 in W.P.(C) No.17296 of 2014. In the said judgment we have already come to the conclusion that the over-bridge constructed across the canal was without valid permit or authority. It is informed that the respondent authorities have already taken steps calling upon the parties to remove the encroached land by demolishing the construction. Despite the said observation, no action has been taken by the Panchayat in this regard is the complaint of the petitioner, hence he seeks the reliefs as prayed for.
4. On a perusal of the representations submitted by the petitioner there is clear allegation that unauthorised constructions had been made. However, it is a matter to be considered by the Panchayat in appropriate proceedings. The Panchayat alone has to take necessary action in consultation with the Revenue Authorities.
5. Though substantial documents had been produced by the petitioner to indicate that the construction is unauthorised, so far no representation had been given to the Panchayat to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Hence, we are of the view that petitioner has to give a representation to the Panchayat and if appropriate action is not taken in the matter, then a cause of action may arise for the petitioner to make a complaint against the inaction on the part of the Panchayat.
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the parties and permitting the petitioner to submit proper representation to the 4th respondent and on receipt of the same, the 4th respondent shall take appropriate action in accordance with law.
Ashok Bhushan, Acting Chief Justice.
A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
ttb/15/12