JUDGMENT Alleging hurried action for demolition of an office building of the respondent panchayath, which, according to the petitioner, is quite unnecessary on account of the fact that the front office of the building has been renovated recently, the petitioner has come up before this Court. 2. The petitioner alleges that the office building of the 1st respondent panchayath is a strong, spacious and convenient one; and huge money has been spent for its proper maintenance and renovation. During the last seven years, around 15,00,000/- was spent on the building as evident from Ext.P1 reply of the 2nd respondent; and in 2014, a major renovation was carried out expending a substantial sum culminating in an inaugural ceremony as evident from Exts.P1 & P2. It is further alleged that now, due to the vested interest of some of the office bearers, a clandestine decision to demolish the office building was taken in the absence of not less than six elected members due to the lack of proper notice. Thereafter, the right of demolition was proposed to be auctioned on 09.06.2015 advertising in newspaper on 04.06.2015; it is alleged. According to the petitioner, this hurried mala fide action is to avoid the interference of the 3rd respondent Government under Sec.191 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act. According to the petitioner, unless urgent interference is made, the cause would be defeated and money would be squandered. Hence, this writ petition. 3. The 1st respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit along with Exts.R1(1) to R1(6), justifying their stand in demolishing the existing building. 4. The petitioner has filed a detailed reply affidavit, controverting the contentions in the counter affidavit and produced Exts.P4 to P14 along with the reply affidavit. 5. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, additional respondents 4 to 9 were impleaded. Addition respondents, who are represented through Adv. T.B. Hood, supported the case advanced by the petitioner. 6. Arguments have been heard. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the supporting respondents would argue that it is evident from Ext.P1 reply & Ext.P2 photographs that the existing panchayath office building is strong, spacious and conveniently useful. It was argued that huge money has been spent from the public exchequer for the maintenance and renovation within the preceding seven years. It was argued that huge money has been spent from the public exchequer for the maintenance and renovation within the preceding seven years. It was also pointed out that a major renovation work was carried out in the year 2014, which was followed by an inaugural ceremony. It was pointed out that such a building is now decided to be demolished for private motives and gains. It was further argued that the clandestine and hasty attitude of the 1st respondent suggests mala fides in the matter. It was also pointed out that in the absence of proper notice, not less than six elected members could not participate in the decision making process and register their protest in the proceedings, which enabled the panchayath committee to depict the same as a unanimous resolution. It was argued that general public was at dark; and only through Ext.P1 news item dated 04.06.2015, scheduling the auction for the right of demolition of the existing building on 09.06.2015, the public including the petitioner came to know about it. It was further argued that the building worths crores of rupees was devalued to a paltry amount; and the auction would cause great loss to the public exchequer. 8. In answer to the said submission, Mr. Vinod Singh Cheriyan, the learned counsel for the respondent panchayath submitted as follows; The governing body of the 1st respondent panchayath has taken Ext.R1(1) decision in its meeting held on 27.04.2015 to reconstruct the existing old building. The said meeting was convened after serving notice on all the other 17 members. Therefore, it was pointed out that it is absolutely false to say that the said meeting was convened without informing all the members. Copy of the relevant pages of notice book is produced as Ext.R1(2). As per the said decision, Ext.R1(3) proposal was submitted to the Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Thiruvananthapuram through Deputy Director of Panchayath, Malappuram. According to him, it is not correct to say that the office building of the panchayath is a strong and spacious building and the building is 44 years old and is in a dilapidated condition. The Deputy Director of Panchayaths, Malappuram, who inspected the office building, was satisfied that the roof of the building is dilapidated and pose a potential danger of collapsing any moment and prepared a report of what he has seen. The Deputy Director of Panchayaths, Malappuram, who inspected the office building, was satisfied that the roof of the building is dilapidated and pose a potential danger of collapsing any moment and prepared a report of what he has seen. The report states that it is not spacious enough as it was made to appear. Thereafter, as per Ext.R1(5) order, the Director of Panchayath approved the proposal for demolition. On 30.05.2015, the said order of the Director of Panchayath was placed before the Panchayath meeting and the meeting has taken a decision to call to issue an auction notice for demolition of the building, which is produced as Ext.P3 by the petitioner. It was argued that the building was constructed 44 years ago and it was designed for housing skeletal staff consisting of less than ten and the elected body consisting of 8 members. The area is only less than 100 square meters. Now, there is a civic body consisting of 18 members, with four functional standing committees, Assistant Secretary Head clerk, Accountant, 10 clerical staff and field staff and office attendants, requiring more than double the space. The other staff like Assistant Engineer, Overseers, Clerk, Village Extension Officer, staff of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Kudumbasree office Jagratha Samithi office etc. are shifted to the extension block of the Panchayath building. The only way to ensure smooth functioning of the office with basic amenities to the staff as well as the public is to build a spacious new building demolishing the old building which pose perceptible danger to the lives of the people working in visiting the office. These facts are clearly narrated in the letter of the Deputy Director of Panchayaths, Malappuram; so submitted Mr. Vinod Singh Cheriyan. He further argued that the statement of the petitioner that a sum of 15,00,000/- was spent for improvements, maintenance and renovation of the office building, is not true to facts. The information in Ext.P1 letter is distorted and misrepresented before this Court; it was pointed out. Out of the eight items of expenditure given in the Ext.P1 letter, none of them was to fortify the structural soundness of the old office building. First items mentioned in the said letter 2,99,791/- was spent for purchase of computers and accessories, which, according to them, would be used in the future building also. Out of the eight items of expenditure given in the Ext.P1 letter, none of them was to fortify the structural soundness of the old office building. First items mentioned in the said letter 2,99,791/- was spent for purchase of computers and accessories, which, according to them, would be used in the future building also. The second item to fifth item, 3,12,173/-, 25,744/-, 25,900/- and 1,71,227/- were spent to prevent falling of dirt and moth eaten roof of the old structure, for providing tiles on the totally dented and damaged floor etc. The sixth item of 2,36,586/- and the seventh and eighth items of 3,24,374/- and 6,783/- were again spent on front office building temporary for adding a front office considering the acute congestion experienced by the visitors and for the rewiring of the building to avoid any chance for short circuit and entailing plausible danger. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, none of these could be delayed or avoided, neither could be termed unnecessary. Besides this, amount was spent between 2005 and 2015 to patch up the tear and wear of an old building. The petitioner has suppressed these facts and a distorted picture was brought before this Court. Ext.P2 photos were taken on the occasion of the front office inaugural function. The said front office extension is an extension, exclusively, of temporary nature, with tin sheets on the roof. This would show how crammed and congested is the present office building; it was argued. The petitioner's claim that the majority of the voters and political parties are not in favour of the reconstruction is also false; according to the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. There was persistent demand from the public for reconstruction of the building considering its inadequacy and dilapidated condition. The steps for reconstruction was being pursued since the year 2014 and there was never any protest from any corner against it. Not only the ruling parities, but even the opposition party in the civic body is supporting the reconstruction; according to the 1st respondent. The petitioner has not produced any document to prove that the proposed reconstruction is against the wishes of the majority. He has not cited to any single complaint or objection opposing the proposed reconstruction from any individuals or organizations in the Panchayath area; it was argued. The petitioner has not produced any document to prove that the proposed reconstruction is against the wishes of the majority. He has not cited to any single complaint or objection opposing the proposed reconstruction from any individuals or organizations in the Panchayath area; it was argued. The reconstruction is just a need of the hour; and the more it is delayed, the more would be the cost. The argument that the respondents have personal financial consideration and wants to help private contractors is malignant, frivolous and unsustainable. This sort of baseless and filthy allegations would only satisfy the petitioner's negative view towards public interest; it was stated. The respondents are acting in the interest of the public; and so far, there was not any protest or opposition not even from the opposition parties. It was further argued that the averments in para 3 of the petition that the meeting held on 27-04-2015 was held clandestinely, is totally incorrect and baseless. The notice for the said meeting was served on all the 17 members on time. The absence of some members is a quite common phenomenon in any meeting. If at all any member had any objection to the decision taken in the meeting held on 27-04-2015, such members would not absent from the meeting. Instead they could have attended the meeting for sure and opposed the decision and could have recorded their dissenting note. The decision on 27.04.2015 was taken unanimously, where even the two opposition party (Communist Party of India - Marxist) members also voted for the decision. The Grama Panchayat resolution on 27.04.2015 was a final decision arrived at after a very long deliberations and discussions since last year. The matter of demolition of office building was discussed in the Grama Panchayat meetings held on 29-12-2014, 13-02-2015 and 25-03-2015, with this agenda. Therefore, the statement that the resolution was held in clandestine is baseless and intended to misguide this Court; it was argued. Copies of the meeting notice book related to the meetings held on 27-04-2015 and 30-05-2015 are marked as Exhibits R1(2) and R1(6). 9. Therefore, the statement that the resolution was held in clandestine is baseless and intended to misguide this Court; it was argued. Copies of the meeting notice book related to the meetings held on 27-04-2015 and 30-05-2015 are marked as Exhibits R1(2) and R1(6). 9. In answer to the said submission, Mr.Abdul Jawad, the learned counsel for the petitioner, would point out that the petitioner was prevented from approaching the Government under Section 191 of the Act due to the concealment of the clandestine act from the public view; and therefore, the petitioner could prefer a petition before the Government only on 09.06.2015, i.e., immediately after upon getting knowledge of the same. Ext.P4 is the said representation. It was also argued that Ext.P1(1) is not a legally taken decision as five elected members were forced to boycott the meeting due to the procedural impropriety in convening the meeting on 27.04.2015. It was further argued that the matter was not duly deliberated; and there is no material to prove that the Government has seen much less approved decision of the panchayath if, at all, Ext.R1(3) was submitted as claimed by the 1st respondent. It was also argued that the building is strong; and the Deputy Director of the panchayath did not state in Ext.R1(4) that the building was dilapidated. He only stated that a portion of the tiled roof is dilapidated, which could have been effectively repaired. It was also argued that Ext.R1(5) was issued on misconception of fact as if the Deputy Director had stated that the building itself is dilapidated. 10. It is pertinent to note that the Asst. Engineer, who inspected the building, has certified that the building is unfit. The Deputy Director, who inspected the building, recommended the demolition. There was a resolution by the panchayath to go ahead with the plan of reconstruction in the meetings held on 29.12.2014, 13.02.2015, 25.03.2015 & 27.04.2015. It is true that the front office of the building was renovated few years back. Of course, the respondents could have postponed the renovation had there been an intention to demolish the existing building in the near future. However, that is not a genuine reason to hold that the building does not require any reconstruction at all. It is true that the front office of the building was renovated few years back. Of course, the respondents could have postponed the renovation had there been an intention to demolish the existing building in the near future. However, that is not a genuine reason to hold that the building does not require any reconstruction at all. It is discernible from the materials now placed on record that the demolition and reconstruction of the building was discussed in the Grama Sabhas, various panchayath meetings and was included in the Annual Plan 2015-16, which was discussed and approved by the District Planning Committee chaired by the Jilla Panchayath President, the District Collector being the Convenor. As this decision making process had undergone various stages before different forums, it cannot be said that the auction of the panchayath was hasty. Only after elapse of six months and five meetings of the panchayath, such a decision was arrived at. It cannot be said that it is a clandestine affair as it was made to appear. 11. Though it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the decision happened to be unanimous on account of the boycotting of the elected members, who did not support the resolution, this Court is of the view that had there been any dissent, they could have recorded their dissent in the minute. 12. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that the public auction was attended by 43 auctioneers; and it was very much transparent. It was a tough public auction; and the valuation was based on Ext.R1 certificate issued by a technical officer of the department. 13. Admittedly, the building now sought to be demolished is a tiled roofed building aged more than 44 years. The decision was taken on account of the dilapidated condition of the existing building. The interest of the staff and public, who will have to remain under a dilapidated structure, also was taken into account. The plan for reconstruction was approved by the District Planning Committee chaired by the President. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner has not used the remedial measure provided to him under Section 191 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act. The plan for reconstruction was approved by the District Planning Committee chaired by the President. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner has not used the remedial measure provided to him under Section 191 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act. On a consideration of the entire materials now placed on record, this Court is of the definite view that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as prayed for. Therefore, the writ petition fails; and accordingly, it is dismissed.