THAJUDEEN KUTTY, Vs. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are stated to be the President of Vengai Central Mahal Muslim Jamath and a resident of the locality respectively, are aggrieved by Ext.P4 order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, which set aside an order passed by the respondent Panchayath, against the 3rd respondent. The facts in the writ petition would reveal that the respondent Panchayat had, at the instance of persons residing in the locality, issued a show cause notice proposing to cancel a building permit and occupancy certificate granted in respect of a building bearing No.MB 7/396 of Mynagappally Panchayat. It would appear that the said building originally belonged to one Shihab, who obtained a building permit for construction of a three storied shop building, but later, on completion of the construction, obtained an occupancy certificate for using the building for educational purposes. The building was thereafter let out to the 3rd respondent, who, as tenant of the building, used it for conducting a Madrassa. The complaints raised against the 3rd respondentwere essentially that he was, under the guise of carrying on educational activities, effectively permitting the building to be used for religious purposes, and, hence, had violated the terms of the occupancy certificate granted in respect of the building. The consequential notice issued to the 3rd respondent by the respondent Panchayat was also on the said ground. In the appeal filed before the Tribunal, the 3rd respondent contended that the building was not being used for any religious purposes, and the only religious activity performed there was in the form of students offering "Niskaram" or "Namaas" at the scheduled time based on their religious beliefs. It is stated that other than the prayers offered by the students, the building was otherwise used for educational activities. The Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, after hearing the parties found that there was nothing on record to show that the building was used for religious purposes, and further, that any member of the public, other than the students, were offering prayers in the building. The finding of the respondent Panchayat that the building was being used for religious purposes was therefore vacated by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. As already noted, Ext.P4 order of the Tribunal is impugned in the writ petition. In the writ petition also, other than Ext.P8 letter dated 30.5.2017 issued by the District Police Chief to the District Collector, Kollam, which suggests that the building is used for religious purposes, there is no material to establish that, as a matter of fact, the building is being used for religious purposes by the 3rd respondent. The petitioners only rely on certain complaints that have been filed before the various statutory authorities to point out that the 3rd respondent is in fact conducting religious activities in the building.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing counsel for the respondent Panchayat, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent as also the learned Government Pleader for the official respondent.

(3.) On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, and taking note of the averments in the writ petition, counter affidavit and the reply affidavit filed in this case, I am of the view that inasmuch as there is no material that would establish that the 3rd respondent is in fact conducting religious activities in the building in question, there is no justification for interfering with the finding of fact entered by the Tribunal in Ext.P4 order. Under such circumstances, the writ petition, in its challenge against Ext.P4 order, fails, and is hereby dismissed. I make it clear that nothing in this judgment shall stand in the way of the petitioners approaching the respondent Panchayat with materials that would conclusively indicate that the 3rd respondent is using the building for religious purposes, and the respondent Panchayat from initiating any action based on such material, if found necessary. Needless to say, in the event of the respondent Panchayat initiating any action against the 3rd respondent, the same should be done only after issuance of a notice to the said respondent and hearing him in the matter.