Point of Law: where on the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice, not because it is not necessary to observe natural justice but because courts do not issue futile writs.

JUDGMENT :

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Exhibit P10 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram in Appeal No.401/2014 dated 11th July, 2016, whereby the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent herein was allowed and the impugned order passed by the Secretary of the Perambra Grama Panchayat -1st respondent issued under Section 235W (3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act 1994 directing the 3rd respondent to demolish a hut was set aside, holding that for construction of a hut, no permit is required otherwise than as provided under section 235P of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. It was also held that no permit is necessary in the matter of construction of a hut as provided under rule 10(xii) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011. It is thus challenging the legality and correctness of the order, the writ petition is filed.

2. Petitioner has a basic contention that in the appeal before the Tribunal, petitioner was not made a party and that the petitioner was a necessary party in the said proceedings since the complaint before the Secretary was filed by him. The necessary facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows;

3. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent viz., Kunhikannan, S/o. Kanaran, Thandorappara P.O., Kozhikode, constructed an unauthorised thatched shed in front of petitioner's commercial building, partly blocking its entry on 11.10.2005; that construction was done substantially covering petitioner's building, its passage visibility, light and air, which is evident from Exhibit P1 series of photographs produced by the petitioner; that the 3rd respondent erected the shed in violation of the prevailing Municipal Building Rules, evident from Exhibit P2 complaint, the inspection report of the Secretary of the Perambra Grama Panchayat, Exhibit P3 show cause notice and Exhibit P4 reply filed by the 3rd respondent to the said notice.

4. According to the petitioner, the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat has issued a notice dated 14.3.2014 to demolish and remove the illegal structure, pursuant to Exhibit P9 direction issued by the Deputy Director of Panchayat. It is also pointed out that the 3rd respondent has challenged the said order before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions suppressing material facts and excluding the petitioner from the party array, and secured Exhibit P10 order interfering with the order of the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. It is also submitted that Exhibit P10 order was passed contrary to the facts and especially the finding that the shed was constructed 15 years back. However, the records would show that the illegal structure was constructed in the year 2005. That apart it is contended that the construction made by the 3rd respondent is hit by section 220 (b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and therefore liable to be demolished.

5. The Grama Panchayat has filed a detailed counter affidavit submitting that the bunk shop put up by the 3rd respondent is situated in an extent of 0.27 Ares of property belonging to the 3rd respondent ; that 2 cents of land belonging to the 3rd respondent was earlier acquired for construction of the bus stand and it was in the remaining land that the 3rd respondent had put up a thatched shed for running his small pan shop. That part, it was submitted that the shed is constructed before the coming into force of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011; that since the Panchayat is satisfied that there is no violation of the Building Rules and that the 3rd respondent has every right to have possession and enjoyment of the property, has not proceeded further; that on enquiry it is understood that no construction has been carried out in the plot except installation of a hawker's cart provided with a roof of plastic and that the Panchayat has not taken further action in the complaint and the complaint was also closed.

6. Anyhow a fresh petition was filed by the petitioner on 3.