MARYKUTTY MATHEW Vs. ST THOMAS ORTHODOX CATHEDRAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for consideration in this appeal relates to interpretation of sub-rule (9) of Rule 6 of Kerala Panchayath Raj (Burial and Burning Ground) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as '1998 Rules').

(2.) Petitioner in O. P. 10593/2000 is the appellant. 1st respondent made Ext. R1(a) application dt. 6-7-1999 for permission to have a place for burying the dead in 10 Cents of land referred therein addressed to the Secretary Kadambanad Grama Panchayath. Eventhough by that time 1998 Rules have come into force, the application was seen filed under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of Kerala Panchayats (Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as '1967 Rules'). The Panchayat processed the application as one under 1998 Rules and, on 8-9-1999, passed Ext. R1(b) resolution recommending the application to the District Medical Officer as well as the District Collector. The resolution was forwarded to the District Medical Officer under Ext. R1(C) communication dt. 8-9-1999. The District Medical Officer sent his report Ext. R1(e) dt. 16-10-1999 informing the Panchayat that on inspection, the site was found suitable from the public health point of view and that the application could be allowed subject to the conditions referred therein. Tahsildar, Adoor also submitted a report dt. 25-11-1999 to the District Collector recommending the application. While the application was pending consideration before the District Collector, petitioner filed O.P. 10593/2000 on 3-4-2000, challenging the proceeding pending before the District Collector.

(3.) Apart from the contentions taken on the merits of the case, appellant raised an objection in the District Collector passing any order on the application of the 1st respondent relying on the dictum laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Surendran v. District Collector, (1999) 2 Ker LJ 355 : (AIR 2000 Kerala 103). According to the appellant, six months have lapsed since the date of Ext. R1(a) application. The fact that the District Collector had posted the application for hearing the objection of the appellant on 7-4-2000 under Ext. P3 would show that he had not passed final order within six months from 6-7-1999. If that be so, appellant would contend that the District Collector has become functus officio and no order can be passed by him on the application Ext. R1(a) in the light of the above-mentioned decision of this Court.