J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is President of the Pandalam Thekkekara Grama Panchayat, and according to the petitioner, he has been authorized by a resolution of the Panchayat Committee dated 19.10.2012 to file the writ petition.

2. The case of the petitioner is that in terms of Ext. P1 resolution, all the roads in the Panchayat area were notified under Section 220(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Therefore when construction of buildings are made within the limits of the Grama Panchayat, an open space of 3 meters on the side facing the road has to be left. But the 1st respondent, namely Smt. Annamma, constructed a commercial building without leaving the open space as required under law and thereupon, she was served with Exts. P2 and P3 notices by the Panchayat directing to demolish the unauthorized construction to which the 1st respondent has filed Ext. P5 objection. However the Panchayat found the reply of the 1st respondent not satisfactory and consequently, the building was not numbered.

3. Thereafter the 1st respondent approached the Deputy Director of Panchayat, Pathanamthitta seeking directions to the Panchayat to number the building but the said request was rejected as per Ext. P6 order dated 15.02.2008 and later as per Ext. P7 order dated 03.12.2011 the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat has declined to number the building of the 1st respondent.

4. Thereafter the 1st respondent filed a representation again before the Deputy Director of Panchayat who was of the opinion that the road in question is not covered by Ext. P1 resolution and accordingly, the Panchayat was directed to number the building constructed by the 1st respondent evident from Ext. P8 order dated

25.10.2011.

5. It seems the Panchayat has filed an objection to Ext. P8 and the matter remained like that. Since the Panchayat did not take any action pursuant to the direction contained in Ext. P8, the 1st respondent filed a representation before the Minister for Local Administration, who in turn has sought for a report from the Deputy Director of Panchayat and in the report, it appears that the Deputy Director stated that the road abutting the property of the 1st respondent is not yet notified by the Panchayat, so as to have any implication of Section

220(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 vis-a-vis the construction made by the 1st respondent.

6. Anyhow, thereafter the Government as per Ext. P12 order dated 24.09.2012 declared that the rule requirement contained under Section 220(b) of the Act 1994 does not apply to the commercial building constructed by the 1st respondent. It is thus challenging Ext. P12 the writ petition is filed with an alternative prayer to declare that the Keerukuzhy Market – Water Tank Road is covered by Ext. P1 resolution issued by the Panchayat under Section 220(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

7. The Deputy Director of Panchayat has filed an objection justifying the orders, passed by the Deputy Director and the State Government respectively, and it is reiterated in the same that there is no resolution passed by the Panchayat notifying the road in question, in accordance with the parameters provided under Section 220(b) of the Act 1994.

8. I have heard, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Philip J.

Vettickattu, learned Government Pleader Sri. Jacob E. Simon for respondents 2 and 3 and Sri. Philip M. Varghese for the 1st respondent and perused the pleadings and material on record.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition and has taken me through Ext. P1 resolution passed by the Panchayat dated 22.11.1994. According to the learned Government Pleader, Ext. P1 resolution passed by the Panchayat has not only not notified the road in question, it cannot even be considered as a general notification notifying all the roads of the Panchayat in terms of Section 220(b) of Act 1994 as contended.

10. I have considered the rival submissions. The sole question corps up for considerati