ROY YOHANNAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the 1st respondent District Collector to take up Ext.P3 representation submitted by the petitioner, hear all parties mentioned thereto, and after making joint inspection, to pass an order not to disturb the tomb of the petitioner's family or other tomb of the cemetery of Mar Sabor Mar Aphroth-Jacobite Syrian Cathedral, Akapparambu, in the interest of justice, and for other related reliefs. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Petitioner's father and grandmother are buried in the cemetery of the afore-specified Cathedral. According to the petitioner, now a dispute is raised by the party respondents regarding re-construction of tomb in the cemetery, disturbing other tombs in the cemetery, which is an issue coming within the purview of the 1 st respondent in accordance with the powers granted under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1998 (for short, 'the Rules, 1998'). The party respondent has approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam, without making the petitioner a party and based on an order, he is attempting to disturb other tombs in the cemetery, which is illegal and against law. It is also submitted that, the Consumer Forum is not having any jurisdiction to decide such issues.

(3.) The 6th respondent filed a petition for re- constructing his family tomb in the cemetery of the Cathedral managed by the 4th respondent. On 30.04.2018, the party respondents came with the order and declared that they will re-construct the tomb by disturbing the nearby tomb. It is also the case of the petitioner that, Ext.P1 judgment is obtained by the 6th respondent in the appeal by collusion etc. etc. It is also submitted that, Ext.P1 judgment is illegal and against law. The 1st respondent is the authority to consider such issues in accordance with the Rules, 1998, and it was thereupon that, petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 before the said respondent, however, 1st respondent is hesitant to consider the issues raised by the petitioner, which necessitated the filing of this writ petition.