The petitioner has approached this Court seeking that Ext.P5

building permit granted to respondents 3 and 4 be set aside, since it

violates the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Kerala

Panchayat Building Rules (KPB Rules); with an alternative plea that the 2^nd

respondent - Secretary of the Grama Panchayat be directed to take

necessary action against the said respondents under Rules 19 and 20 of

KPB Rules and demolish the alleged unauthorised construction forthwith.

2. When this matter was called today, there was no representation

for the petitioner nor was she present in person and the record shows that

this was the situation even when this matter was listed earlier. I am,

therefore, constrained to dispose of the matter in the absence of the

petitioner.

3. Smt.Vaheeda Babu, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3

and 4, submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable since the

challenge to a validly issued Building Permit cannot be entertained by this

Court, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

3

particularly because the petitioner has an alternative, efficacious,

statutory remedy of approaching the competent Tribunal for this purpose.

She then asserts that the allegations in this writ petition are extremely

vague and all that the petitioner alleges is that the building in question is

being constructed in violation of the Building Permit and the KPB Rules.

She asserts that there is no violation of the applicable Building Rules and

that the construction is being carried on in complete conformity with the

Building Plan granted to her clients. She, therefore, prays that the writ

petition be dismissed.

4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent

Panchayat submitted that a statement has been filed on record, wherein

the following have been stated:-

"10. Answering to Para 10 of the writ petition, it is submitted that

the panchayat had issued building permit to the 3rd respondent

strictly as per law. The said permit was issued on the basis of

enquiry report submitted by Assistant Engineer, LSGD, The

District Collector, The District Town Planner and also based on

the No objection certificate of the Fire Force. True copy of the

order of the District Town Planner bearing No.C-708/15 dated

30.05.2015 is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R1(b). True

copy of the NO objection certificate issued by Assistant Divisional

Officer, Fire and Rescue Service, bearing No.G-7003/15 dated

03.07.2015 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(c). It

4

is also submitted that no construction works is being done at the

site as works are required to be stopped as per letter bearing

No.D-5369/2016 dated 01.12.2016 issued by this of respondent

Panchayat.

11. It is submitted that, the building permit was issued to the 4th

respondent strictly as provided under KPBR, 2011 Rules.

Contentions otherwise in Para 11 are not correct.

23.Answering to Sub Para-15 under Para 11, it is submitted that

distance between latrine leach pit of the Mosque and the

petitioner's well is 27.9 meters whereas Rule 91 of KPBR, 2011,

insists distance of is only 7.5 meters. However construction of the

toilets is also sought to be regularised as per the application for

regularisation."

The learned Standing Counsel, therefore, says that the application now

made by respondents 3 and 4, for regularization of the construction, can

be considered and that this Court may grant the Secretary of the

Panchayat liberty to do so, after hearing the petitioner also.

Taking note of the afore circumstances and particularly since I find

force in the submissions of Smt.Vaheeda Babu that the validity of the

Building Permit cannot be challenged by the petitioner before this Court,

on account of a statutory alternative remedy being available to her; and

since the Panchayat concedes that the application of respondents 3 and 4,

for regularisation of their building,