JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J. 1. A person who is in possession of shop room bearing No. III/173 within the limits of the Thamarakkulam Panchayat is the writ petitioner in both these Writ Petitions. W.P.(C) No. 4631 of 2006 is filed arraying the Secretary of the Panchayat as the 1st respondent; owners (being husband and wife) of shop room No. III/173 as respondents 2 and 3 and the owner of an adjacent shop room as the 4th respondent. The case projected by the writ petitioner is that a Vydyasala is being conducted in the shop room and that the shop room itself was constructed by the petitioner's grandfather on the strength of the lease of land given to the grandfather by the then owner one Alex in February, 1965. The petitioner came to have occupation of the room and the business in 1967. In 1991, on the basis of an oral agreement between the land-owner Sri. Alex and the petitioner, it was agreed that ownership over the land will be conveyed to the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and the entire consideration was paid by the petitioner then and there. It was ignoring this agreement that the legal heirs of Sri. Alex conveyed the entire extend of land as well as title over the shop building which, though constructed by the petitioner's grandfather, stood in the name of Sri. Alex, to respondents 2 arid 3. Eversince respondents 2 and 3 came to have ownership, they had been trying to drive the petitioner out of the shop room by hook or by crook. Several litigations aroses between the parties in this context. On 7-11 -2004, respondents 2 and 3 approached the petitioner with a proposal to sell one cent of land on the north-western corner of their property with a pathway having 3 1/2 feet width for a consideration of Rs.l lakh. The petitioner claims to have agreed to the proposal and paid the sale consideration. On 13-11-2004 the property was measured and demarcated and the petitioner started construction of a building on 18-11 -2004. A two-storeyed building was constructed and the ground floor of the building is having rolling shutter and the key of the building is presently in the possession of the petitioner. On 13-11-2004 the property was measured and demarcated and the petitioner started construction of a building on 18-11 -2004. A two-storeyed building was constructed and the ground floor of the building is having rolling shutter and the key of the building is presently in the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that thereafter respondents 2 and 3 changed their colour and again made attempts to grab the key of the building from him. This attempt also led to civil as well as criminal cases between the parties. Respondents 2 and 3 are now bent upon seeing that the petitioner is evicted from the shop room at any cost. The 4th respondent, occupant of the eastern side of the shop room occupied by the petitioner, was won over by respondents 2 and 3 and in order to accommodate the sinister objective of ousting the petitioner, the 4th respondent was made to file a complaint before the Panchayat. The allegation in the complaint is that the building is in a dilapidated condition and that the same poses imminent danger to the building occupied by the 4th respondent. The complaint requests for immediate demolition of the shop room belonging to the petitioner. The motion is a collusive one between respondents 2 to 4, it is alleged. The motion was successful and Ext. P1 order dated 24-8-2005 has been passed by the 1st respondent. 2. The 4th respondent filed Writ Petition No. 26245 of 2005 seeking implementation of Ext. P1 while the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 29141 of 2005 challenging Ext. P1. This Court under Ext. P2 judgment quashed Ext. Pl and directed the 1st respondent to take a fresh decision after hearing both parties. The 1st respondent after conducting hearing on the basis of Ext. P2 judgment again concurred with the earlier order. Ext. P3 is copy of the order of the 1st respondent. The petitioner preferred an appeal against Ext. P3 before the Panchayat. He filed Writ Petition No. 36333 of 2005 before this Court seeking stay of the order till the appeal is disposed of. This Court passd Ext. P4 judgment directing an early disposal of the appeal and ordering that the order (Ext.P3) will not be implemented till the appeal is disposed of. The Panchayat has now passed Ext. P5 order rejecting the appeal. W.P.(C) No. 4631 of 2006 has been filed impugning Ext. This Court passd Ext. P4 judgment directing an early disposal of the appeal and ordering that the order (Ext.P3) will not be implemented till the appeal is disposed of. The Panchayat has now passed Ext. P5 order rejecting the appeal. W.P.(C) No. 4631 of 2006 has been filed impugning Ext. P5 on various grounds, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts. P3 and P5. 3. W.P.(C) No. 17236 of 2006 is filed by the very same petitioner, arraying the Secretary of the Panchayat alone as the respondent. The grievance which is voiced by the writ petitioner in this case is that because of the orders which are referred to in the connected writ petition, the Panchayat has rejected his application for licence for conducting business in the shop room in question. Ext. Pl is copy of the licence dated 2-2-1984 issued by the Panchayat to the petitioner to sell homoeopathic medicines. Ext. P2 is the validity certificate dated 11-7-2005 which will show that Ext. Pl licence is valid upto 31-12-2006. Ext. P3 is the order of the Panchayat dated 24-8-2005 by which respondents 2 and 3 in W.P.(C) No. 4631 of 2006 have been directed to demolish the building occupied by the petitioner. Ext. P4 is the order of the Panchayat dated 19-12-2005 by which the Panchayat rejected the petitioner's appeal Ext. P5 which is under challenge in W.P.(C) No. 4631 of 2006. Ext. P6 is copy of receipt dated 29-7-1982 by which the petitioner has remitted licence fee for the period 1982-83. Ext. P7 is copy of the licence dated 13-5-2005 which covers the period 1-4-2005 to 31-3-2006. Ext. P8 is copy of the application dated 23-3-2006 submitted by the petitioner for renewal of the licence. Ext. P8 was rejected on two reasons. The first reason is that columns 6 and 7 of the application were not seen filled. The second reason is that the building itself has been ordered to be demolished since it is in a dangerous condition. The second reason, the petitioner says, is totally irrelevant. Ext. P9 is the copy of the rejection order. Pursuant to Ext. P9, the petitioner was called upon by notice dated 27-4-2006 (Ext. P10) to close down the shop room. The petitioner resubmitted the application after filling up the columns. The second reason, the petitioner says, is totally irrelevant. Ext. P9 is the copy of the rejection order. Pursuant to Ext. P9, the petitioner was called upon by notice dated 27-4-2006 (Ext. P10) to close down the shop room. The petitioner resubmitted the application after filling up the columns. That application was rejected stating the reason that the petitioner had suppressed the fact as to who was the real owner of the property and the further fact that the Panchayat had already ordered demolition of the building. Ext. P11 is the copy of the application and Ext. P12 is the copy of the order. The petitioner alleges that Ext. Pl2 is tainted with mala fides and is passed on irrelevant and extraneous considerations. Impugning Ext. P12 on various grounds, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking to quash Exts. P9, P10 and P12 and also for a direction to the respondent to forbear from proceedings in pursuance to Exts. P9, P10, P12. 4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent in W.P.(C) No. 4631 of 2006. Along with this counter affidavit, Ext. P4 series of photographs showing the pictures of the building occupied by the petitioner and the building occupied by the 4th respondent are produced. The 4th respondent contends that she is not at all interested in the disputes between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. She is concerned about the safety of herseif and her building. The petitioner's building is in a dilapidated condition which poses imminent threat to the 4th respondent's building. It is a very old three-line room building which is in a dilapidated condition. Two rooms were vacated by the tenants who apprehended imminent collapse of the building. The only remaining tenant is the petitioner. The condition of the building is so dangerous that it can fell down any moment. One wall of the building has been separated and that wall rests on the 4th respondent's building. The Panchayat has every power to pass the impugned orders under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. 5. The Standing Counsel for the Panchayat has filed a statement in this case. It is stated that on receiving written complaint from the 4th respondent, the Panchayat addressed the Assistant Executive Engineer of the P.W.D. to give a report about the condition of the building. 5. The Standing Counsel for the Panchayat has filed a statement in this case. It is stated that on receiving written complaint from the 4th respondent, the Panchayat addressed the Assistant Executive Engineer of the P.W.D. to give a report about the condition of the building. Accordingly the Assistant Executive Engineer has issued Ext. R1 (a) certificate dated 15-12-2005. The certificate is to the effect that the building is not fit for any purpose and that it is very dangerous for human life. 6. It was very heated arguments which were addressed before me by Sri. R.T. Pradeep, learned Counsel for the petitioner in both the cases. I have heard the submissions of Sri. J. Omprakash, learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat and also those of Sri. Alias M. Cherian, learned Counsel for the 4th respondent (in W.P.(C) No. 4631 of 2006). 7. The point which came up for serious debate at the Bar was the power of the Secretary/Panchayat to direct demolition of a building on the ground that its condition endangers human life or property. No such power has been conferred on the Panchayat at all, though a like power has been conferred on the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, according to Sri. Pradeep. The Sub Divisional Magistrate also does not straightaway pass such an order. Order is passed only on the basis of an adjudication as to the condition of the building. In the instant case, due to the summary order which is passed, an entrenched tenant is going to be unceremoniously evicted from a building in which he carries on business and ekes his livelihood. 8. Having carefully considered the provisions of Section 239 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 I am of the view that it is within the powers of the Panchayat to take up appropriate action for abatement of danger, if a building situated within the limits of the Panchayat poses danger on account of its "unhealthy condition". Having seen the materials placed on record by the Standing Counsel for the Panchayat, i.e., the certificate issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, P.W. D. and by the 4th respondent (Ext. R4 series of photographs), I have reason to hold that the apprehension of the 4th respondent that the building in question poses imminent danger to her building and to herself has basis. R4 series of photographs), I have reason to hold that the apprehension of the 4th respondent that the building in question poses imminent danger to her building and to herself has basis. At any rate, I do not find any warrant for interfering with Ext. P5 which has been passed by the Panchayat Committee. Ext. P5, according to me, is a reasoned order which is not liable to be corrected invoking judicial review. 9. W.P.(C) No. 4631 of 2006 will stand dismissed. But the order of stay passed in the Writ Petition will continue till 28-8-2006. 10. Coming to W.P.(C) No. 17236 of 2006, it is to be noticed that Ext. P12 is an appealable order. It is open to the petitioner to have recourse to the appellate remedies against Ext. P12. The petitioner is directed to do the needful within one week of his receiving a copy of this judgment. Accordingly the interim order passed in this case also will continue till 22-8-2006. Writ Petition No. 17236 will also stand dismissed.