JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

" a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Exhibit P2 order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the 1st respondent and direct a de novo enquiry into the petitioner’s complaint, strictly in accordance with the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019, after affording the petitioner and all affected parties a proper opportunity of being heard;

b. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate direction, restraining the 3rd and 4th respondents from issuing any occupancy certificate or assigning building number to the 5th respondent’s construction pending completion of a lawful enquiry;

c. Dispense with production of translated copies of documents in vernacular language;

d. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice. "

[SIC]

2. As per Ext.P1 judgment, this Court directed the 1^st respondent to conduct a detailed enquiry into the petitioner’s complaint regarding the alleged illegal construction and irregular grant of occupancy to the 5^th respondent commercial building within the limits of the 3^rd respondent- Panchayat. The 1^st respondent, thereafter passed Ext.P2 order. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4, the learned Special Government Pleader and also the learned Counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent.

4. This Court perused Ext.P1 judgment, and thereafter Ext.P2 order. I am not satisfied the manner in which the 1^st respondent considered the representation submitted by the petitioner. Ext.P2 is not a speaking order.

5. When this writ petition came up for consideration, the petitioner filed an application for appointing an Advocate Commissioner. The Advocate Commissioner submitted a detailed report stating that there are violation of the approved plan. This is disputed by the counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent. I do not wants to make any observation about the same. Considering the manner in which Ext.P2 order is passed, I think Ext.P2 can be set aside, and there can be a direction to the 1^st respondent to reconsider the matter after inspecting the property with notice to the petitioner and the 5^th respondent. While deciding the matter, the 1^st respondent will consider the report submitted by the Commissioner and also Inter-vigilance Officer and the Deputy Town Planner. An opportunity of hearing should be given to the petitioner and the 5^th respondent before passing such an order. The 1^st respondent is free to pass appropriate order in accordance with the law.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: i) Ext.P2 is set aside.

ii) The 1^st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 5^th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

ii) The 1^st respondent will inspect the property before deciding the matter with notice to the petitioner and the 5^th respondent.

iii) The 1^st respondent will also consider the report of the Advocate Commissioner, and also the report of the experts, which is mentioned in Ext.R5(b).

iv) I make it clear that, I have not considered the matter on merit and all the contentions raised by the petitioner and the 5^th respondent are left open. But, I make it clear that, while deciding the matter, report of the Advocate Commissioner, and other reports available should be considered.

Sd/-