JUDGMENT

Ajithkumar, J.

The issues involved in these writ petitions are similar.

Therefore, we dispose of these writ petitions by this common judgment.

W.P.(C) No.19282 of 2021

2. The petitioner is running a tea shop near Valliyamkavu Temple in Peruvanthanam Village. The shop is situated in the property rented out to her by the 3rd respondent. After obtaining necessary permission and licence from all the authorities concerned, she had begun the business. However, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P4 notice dated 08.09.2021 asking the petitioner to demolish the building, where she has been conducting the tea shop, invoking the provisions of Section 235(W)(5) and 236(5)(A) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The petitioner filed O.S.No.277 of 2015 against the 3rd respondent and obtained an order of injunction against her forcible dispossession. The 3rd respondent also filed a suit as O.S.No.155 of 2016 seeking a mandatory injunction to eject the petitioner from the said premises. Ignoring the order of injunction and the fact that the petitioner has complied with all the statutory requirements in the matter of conduct of the tea shop, respondents 1 and 2 issued Ext.P4, which is illegal. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P4 invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2.1 On 16.09.2021, notice was ordered to the respondents and further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 was stayed.

2.2 Respondents 1 and 2 filed a counter affidavit. It was contended that the petitioner, without having a valid licence, has been conducting the tea shop. Further, it is contended, she has no authority to put up the said building and occupy the same in the property belonging to the 3rd respondent. Since the building as well as the business was unauthorised, the panchayat has issued Ext.P4, which is liable to be obliged by the petitioner.

2.3 The 3rd respondent also filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is contended that the petitioner has been unauthorisedly occupying the property belonging to the 3rd respondent, and therefore, action for ejecting her from the said premises was taken by the 3rd respondent.

W.P.(C) No.21054 of 2021

3. The petitioner is running a tea shop near Valliyamkavu Temple in Peruvanthanam Village. The shop is situated in the property rented out to him by the 3rd respondent. After obtaining necessary permission and licence from all the appropriate authorities he had begun the business. However, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P5 notice dated 08.09.2021 asking the petitioner to demolish the building, where he has been conducting the tea shop, invoking the provisions of Section 235(W)(5) and 236(5)(A) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The petitioner has complied with all the statutory requirements for the conduct of the tea shop. The 2nd respondent illegally had issued Ext.P5. Therefore, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition seeking a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P5.

3.1 On 05.10.2021, the Writ Petition was admitted and notice was directed to be served on the respondent. Further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 was stayed.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent-Panchayat and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-Travancore Rubber & Tea Company, and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State.

5. The petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.19282 and 21054 of

2021 are conducting their tea shops in the land rented out by the 3rd respondent. Notices for demolishing their respective shop rooms were issued by Peruvanthanam Grama Panchayat, invoking the provisions of Section 235W(5) and 236(5)(a) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, on common grounds; the building is unauthorised and no licence for the conduct of the business has been obtained.

6. Sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and (5) of Section 235W of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act reads,-

“235W. Demolition or alteration of building works unlaw