The main legal point established in the judgment is that the time limit prescribed in R.6(8) of the Kerala Panchayath (Burial & Burning Grounds) Rules is mandatory, and the Collector must pass the order within the specified time.

S. Sankarasubban, J.

The Writ Appeal has been referred to a Full Bench by Reference Order dated 7,12.94 by Pareed Pillay, Ag. C J. (as he then was) and T.V. Ramakrishnan, J. In the Reference Order the Division Bench expressed the view that the Division Bench decision in Narayanan Thampi v. District Collector, 1988 (2) KLT 48, requires reconsideration with regard to the dicta therein that time limit under sub-r. B of R.6 of the Kerala Panchayath (Burial & Burning Grounds) Rules, 1967 thereinafter called the'Rules') is only directory and not mandatory.

2. The appellants before us are the petitioners in the Original Petition. They challenge Ext. P4 order passed by the District Collector, Trichur under R.6 of Clause 8 of the Rules granting a licence to the 5th respondent for the construction of a cell model burial ground in Sy.No.183/1 of Edathuruthy village of Kodungallur Taluk on certain conditions. The case of the petitioners-appellants is as follows:- The appellants are the residents of Edathuruthy Panchayath. ' Our Lady Mount Carmel Churth, Edathuruthy' is situated 21/2 kilometers away from their residential area. The Church is having a branch at Edathuruthy West namely, Christ King Church, Edamuttam, which is not having any independent existence. The appellants are residing in the north and north eastern portion of the Christ King Church, Edamuttam. At the time when the first appellant started residing in that area, there was only a small Chappel in the place of the present Church. The second appellant purchased the property for constructing a house in November, 1990 and completed the construction of residential house in January, 1991. The appellants submit that the 5th respondent Church attempted to construct a burial ground in February, 1990. Coming to know of this, the residents of the localities filed a mass petition before the third respondent with a copy to the local M.L.A., Health Inspector, D.M.O. and the 4th respondent. The appellants herein are signatories to the above petition. Even before filing the mass petition, the second appellant filed a specific complaint before the 4th respondent bringing to his notice the fact that the construction of the burial ground in the spot will have the effect of polluting the water in-the well used by the second appellant for consumption. Pursuant to that petition, the Revenue Inspector, Mathilakam inspected the site on 14.11.91. After the inspection the Revenue Inspector opined that it is not feasible to construct a burial ground attached to the Church and the residents of the locality were given the assurance that sanction will not be granted for constructing a burial ground because of the existence of so many wells and residential houses around the Church. But in February, 1994, the residents of the locality noted that the 5th respondent was unloading Granite stones and other materials for making some construction works in the Church premises. When the residents enquired with the 5th respondent, they were informed that those articles were unloaded only for the purpose of constructing a'Kurisupally' attached to the Church. But subsequently they came to know that the above information given by the 5th respondent was only a false one and thereafter they found that the Church authorities have created a big pit having 22 feet length and 9 feet and 6 inches depth. Since according to appellants this created a law and order problem and also it was a health hazard, they filed a petition before the 4th respondent. The second appellant filed O.S.I 37/94 before the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda for a permanent injunction restraining the 5th respondent from proceeding with the construction of the burial ground in the Church premises and an interim injunction was granted by the Sub Court. According to appellants, neither the appellants, nor any other residents in the locality were heard by the District Collector before passing Ext. P4 order. The appellants therefore are prejudiced by Ex