The petitioner complains of the unauthorised construction of a temple by the 4th respondent. According to the petitioner, as per Section 235 A of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and Rule 5 (8) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short), the construction of a temple requires prior permission of the District Collector, the 1st respondent herein. It is alleged that the 1st respondent has not obtained any such permission. According to the 3rd respondent, the Panchayat has already issued a stop memo dated 06.09.2013 pursuant to which, the construction of the temple has been stopped. The application submitted by the 4th respondent has been forwarded to the 1st respondent for consideration. It is contended that, further action would be taken in the matter on the basis of the order to be passed by the District Collector.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the construction of the temple has been completed. The 4th respondent ought to have obtained prior permission from the 1st respondent before the construction was commenced. The said course not having been adopted, it is contended that no purpose would be served by considering the application at this stage. A counter affidavit has been W.P.(C) No.7246 of 2013 2 filed by the 4th respondent. The case of the 4th respondent is that, the temple was in existence in the property and that, what has been done by the 4th respondent is only to renovate the same.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Panchayat as well as the 4th respondent and the learned Government Pleader. It is no doubt true that, there is a dispute as to whether the construction has been completed or not. According to the petitioner, construction of the temple is already complete. However, the Panchayat as well as the 4th respondent maintain that the construction is remaining stopped pursuant to the stop memo issued. The application of the petitioner has also been forwarded to the 1st respondent. In view of the above, it shall be open to the 1st respondent to ascertain whether the construction has actually been completed as alleged. If the construction has been completed in violation of law, the Panchayat is armed with sufficient powers to demolish the construction. It shall be open to the 1st respondent to consider whether permission could be granted for the construction that is proposed by the 4th respondent, since an application seeking such permission is stated to be pending before the 1st respondent.
In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the application for permission to make the construction that has been forwarded by the Panchayat to the 1st respondent after having an inspection of the site conducted and after W.P.(C) No.7246 of 2013 3 affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and respondents 3 & 4. Orders as indicated above shall be issued in accordance with law, after hearing all the parties, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
AV