PVS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS Vs. PERUMANNA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERUMANNA P.O., KOZHIKODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court, aggrieved by Ext.P4 stop memo, that is issued to the petitioner, by the respondent Panchayath. The averments in the writ petition would indicate that, while the petitioner had been granted Ext.P1 building permit for construction of a building, and the respondent Panchayath did not have a case that the construction was being carried out contrary to the specifications in Ext.P1 building permit, the petitioner was served with Ext.P4 stop memo, directing it to stop all the construction activities in the premises, for the sole reason that, the respondent Panchayath had received complaints from persons in the locality, complaining of a possible water shortage, that could arise consequent to persons occupying the building that was to be constructed by the petitioner. Ext.P4 stop memo does not refer to the contents of any specific complaint received, and further, does not show the basis on which the Panchayath arrived at a conclusion that the building to be put up by the petitioner, and the resultant occupancy in the said building would lead to a shortage of water in the locality. It is the case of the petitioner that, on receipt of Ext.P4 stop memo, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P5 reply to the said stop memo, and thereafter, sought for a withdrawal of the stop memo. To the said reply, the petitioner was served with Ext.P6 communication, which stated that the stop memo issued to it could not be recalled. The petitioner thereafter preferred Ext.P7 representation, before the Secretary of the respondent Panchayath, and also produced Ext.P7 report prepared by a retired Senior Hydrogeologist of the Ground water Department of the State Government. It is stated that, despite submitting these documents, the respondent Panchayath has not withdrawn the stop memo issued to the petitioner.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein, the sequence of events leading to the issuance of the stop memo has been narrated. In paragraphs 11 and 13 of the counter affidavit, the respondent also states that the Panchayath was convinced that the petitioner was doing piling work, without obtaining the necessary permits as per the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules and therefore to that extent, the construction was being carried on without complying with the specifications in Ext.P1 building permit.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Panchayath.