JUDGMENT

The petitioner company is the holder of an extent of

32.99 Ares comprised in Sy. Nos. 228/1A2 and 230/1A2/1 of Konni Thazham Village, Konni Taluk, Pathanamthitta District. It is stated by the petitioner that the land is locked by private properties on its three sides except the western boundary. By the western side of the boundary, a small thodu, namely Attachakkal Valiya Thodu, flows. On the further west of the thodu there lies the Panchayat Road, namely Attachakkal Vanchipadi-Kollothukadavu Road. It is stated to be vested with the panchayath. It is further asserted that the petitioner has no other means of access to the said road. Therefore, constructed a culvert across the said thodu for easy access to the panchayath road. It is further stated that the said construction was after obtaining necessary permission from the panchayat and also st from the 1 respondent.

2. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that even st thereafter the 1 respondent issued Ext. P7 notice whereby directed to remit an amount of Rs. 1,29,375/- as the centage value on calculating the total estimate of the construction. It is asserted by the petitioner that the issuance of Ext. P7 notice demanding a huge amount is without hearing the petitioner and without issuing a prior notice.

3. Under such circumstances, seeking a direction to quash Ext. P7 and to direct the respondent not to interfere with the usage of the bridge (culvert) constructed by the petitioner, across the Attachakkal Valiya Thodu. The writ petition was preferred.

4. When the matter came up for consideration on

07.10.2015, there was an interim order for a period of one month. It is stated by the petitioner that, on the strength of the interim order and extension granted by this court, the petitioner still keeps using the bridge.

5. In response to the writ petition, a counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent, thereby contended that as per the Kerala Government Water Policy enacted by the State in 2005, the rivers, thodu, streams, etc. are vest with the irrigation department. It is a fact that Attachakkal Valiya Thodu is flowing through the Konni panchayat, but the panchayat authorities are not competent enough to sanction construction of a bridge across the thodu. Under such circumstances, the panchayat authority is directed the petitioner to approach the irrigation department for permission for the construction of the st bridge. Accordingly, permission was sought from the 1 respondent, and after necessary inspection, sanction was accorded to construct the bridge at the petitioner’s risk and costs on certain conditions as per Ext. P2. It is further stated by st the 1 respondent that the construction was carried out by the petitioner at his own cost, including all the materials, and as per the terms of Ext. P3. The maintenance of the bridge also vests with the petitioners on the directions of the departmental st authorities. The 1 respondent also denies the contention that there was no supervision from the part of the departmental authorities. As per the prevailing rules, the petitioner is liable to pay 2.5% of the estimated costs as estimate preparation charges and 10% as security deposit. In that regard, a detailed calculation is also provided in the counter affidavit. On the strength of such assertions, it is stated that there is nothing wrong in Ext. P7.

6. Heard, Sri. Philip J. Vettickattu, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Senior Government Pleader.

7. On evaluating the contentions raised, it appears that no prior notice was issued before raising the demand as per Ext. P7. The said demand appears to be in violation of the principles of natural justice.

8. Under such circumstances, I deem it appropriate to st direct the 1 respondent to treat Ext. P7 as a notice, and the petitioner shall be provided with sufficient time to make his reply. On considering such a reply, the 1st respondent shall take a decision, needless to say after affording the opportunity to be h