THE SECRETARY, ARUVIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT Vs. ANANDAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P. (C) Nos. 19676/2014 and 19968/2014 are filed by Aruvikkara Grama Panchayat against Exhibit P1 common order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram; W.P. (C) No. 821/2015 is filed by the respondent in the other two writ petitions seeking enforcement of Exhibit P1 order. Since all the parties are common in the three writ petitions, with an identical issue to be adjudicated upon, this Court proposes to dispose of the three writ petitions through a common judgment. For ease of reference and expression, the facts as narrated and exhibits as displayed in W.P. (C) No. 19676/2014 have been taken as the basis.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the respondent initially obtained Exhibit R1(c) building permit on 17.08.2012. Subsequently, the petitioner Grama Panchayat issued Exhibit R1(e) show cause notice to the respondent, ostensibly under Rule 18 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Building Rules, 2011, requiring him to explain why the building permit granted in Exhibit R1(c) should not be cancelled. In the face of the explanation submitted by the respondent, when the petitioner Grama Panchayat passed Exhibit R1(g) order, the respondent, aggrieved thereby, filed statutory Appeal No. 226/2013 before the learned Tribunal, which in turn disposed of the said appeal through Exhibit P2 order directing the petitioner to take action after conducting site inspection.

(3.) In compliance with Exhibit P2 order of the learned Tribunal, the petitioner is said to have obtained Exhibit P3 report from the Village Officer, apart from physically inspecting the property in question -- the physical inspection resulting in Exhibit P4 report. Subsequently, the petitioner issued Exhibit P5 show cause notice. Instead of replying, the respondent filed Appeal No. 477/2013 challenging Exhibit P5 show cause notice. The record reveals that after obtaining Exhibit P7 interim order, the respondent went ahead and completed the construction. Evidently while the appeal was pending, the respondent, on completion of the building, applied for an Occupancy Certificate, which was rejected by the petitioner through Exhibit P9.