JUDGMENT : The petitioner is stated to be a resident of Kodumpidy in Kottayam District and he has filed this writ petition seeking action against the 4th respondent-which is stated to be a Society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 -and alleged to have created a large “Arch” like construction on a public road, using the road margins for its foundation, without obtaining any consent or permission from the concerned Local Self Government Institution, namely the Kadanadu Grama Panchayat, the Secretary of which is the 2nd respondent herein. 2. The petitioner says that the 4th respondent has apparently constructed the huge Arch, which is shown in Exts.P1 series of photographs, to use it as a sign board to proclaim their name on it and that this is causing great amount of prejudice to the other residents of the said area, especially motorists and pedestrians who use this road. He, therefore, prays that respondents 1 to 3, 5 and 6 be directed to take immediate action to remove the illegal structure and also that action be taken against the said respondents in having failed to discharge their statutory duties in preventing such construction and in not removing it. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat, in response, submits that the road in question is a Panchayat Road included in their Asset Register, but that the construction of the Arch was made by the 4th respondent without the knowledge of the Panchayat and without obtaining their permission. He says, therefore that necessary action has already been taken against it, by issuing notices to the 4th respondent to remove the structure, but that on account of the pendancy of this writ petition, further measures have not been taken or completed. He, therefore, prays that this court may permit the Pachayat to take appropriate action in terms of law, against the structure as well as the 4th respondent. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submits that all the afore allegations made against his client are untenable and without any basis, since the road on which the structure has been constructed is not a Panchayat Road, but, in the same breath concedes that it is being used as a public road by all persons. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submits that all the afore allegations made against his client are untenable and without any basis, since the road on which the structure has been constructed is not a Panchayat Road, but, in the same breath concedes that it is being used as a public road by all persons. He then says that his client was not aware that he was required to take a consent or permission from the Panchayat for constructing the said Arch and therefore, that when he received a notice from them intimating him that his action was irregular, he made Ext.R4(c) representation before them seeking that the said construction be regularised and he be allowed “to keep the said Arch” (sic). He says that an amount of approximately Rs.2 lakhs has been expended by his client for the said construction and that it is erected as a sign board, without obstructing vehicular traffic or the right of the people of the locality to walk through the said road. He concludes by saying that his client is engaged in various philanthropic and altruistic activities and therefore, that they be allowed to retain the Arch. 5. The learned Senior Government Pleader, Smt. K. Amminikutty, submits that a statement has been filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent as per the directions of this Court, wherein, the following have been clearly averred :... “2. It is submitted that an Arch is illegally constructed by the 4th respondent on the right side of Antinadu-Melukavu road on the shoulder in the right of way of PWD Road as evident from the photograph produced in the WP(c). Also, the Panchayat roads starts from the end of the road shoulders. Kadanadu Grama Panchayath does not hold any right to give consent for any construction in the PWD land. The construction of the Arch is unauthorized and encroachment is done in the PWD land without the permission from the department. As a part of our duties and responsibility, the PWD encroachment has to be removed and safety of road users is our priority. A notice dated 08.10.2018 was issued to the 4th respondent to remove the arch as an action to prevent encroachment of the PWD land and as a safety concern for road users by removing the obstruction in the vision for vehicles entering into the Antinadu melukavu road from Arimattom-Pandiyanmakkacal road. 3. A notice dated 08.10.2018 was issued to the 4th respondent to remove the arch as an action to prevent encroachment of the PWD land and as a safety concern for road users by removing the obstruction in the vision for vehicles entering into the Antinadu melukavu road from Arimattom-Pandiyanmakkacal road. 3. It is submitted that the proper measures were being taken legally to remove the encroachment of arch structure according to law. An application for temporary injunction was filed by the 4th respondent before the Hon'ble Munsiff's Court, Pala vide O.S.302/2018 and counter affidavit has been filed in that case. The final judgment is pending. As a result of which the further steps are kept pending and the judgment in that case is awaited. 4. It is also evident from the photograph that the Arch Structure stands in PWD Land. The boundary stone clearly show that the Arch is in PWD land. The illegal construction is without the notice of the PWD. Several unfortunate accidents have occurred due to the arch structure. Human life should be given prior importance. As stated above, action has been taken according to law by giving notice to 4th respondent and asking to remove the arch from the PWD road shoulders. The judgment is O.S.No.5301/18 before the Hon'ble Munsiff's Court Pala is awaited.” 6. She says that since the “Arch” structure stands in an area under the PWD, which is evident from the boundary stone next to it, this must be removed forthwith and that the Panchayat must take necessary action for the same without any further delay. She then adds that several accidents have occurred due to the afore structure and therefore, that to avoid any further loss of life or injury, emergent action be permitted by this Court against the same. 7. When I hear the above recorded submissions, it is ineluctable that this case presents a scenario that is very ubiquitous in our State these days. Persons who are affluent and influential deem it virtually their right to make illegal structures and to construct illegal buildings wherever they want, under a sense of perceived impunity, solely because the concerned officials do not act in time and often turn a blind eye to such transgressions. Persons who are affluent and influential deem it virtually their right to make illegal structures and to construct illegal buildings wherever they want, under a sense of perceived impunity, solely because the concerned officials do not act in time and often turn a blind eye to such transgressions. The facts presented in this case classically illustrates such rampant illegal action because the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 4th respondent admits unequivocally that no licence or permission had been taken by the 4th respondent from the Panchayat or from the PWD before the offending “Arch” had been created, which is a very large, permanent structure created using mortar and concrete. The 4th respondent has obviously made this construction unmindful of the safety and security of the other persons who use the road, including to vehicular traffic, solely to promote themselves under the guise of being a philanthropic society-projecting themselves to be for the benefit of the people at large. This is a grave situation which should be dealt with the seriousness that it deserves by the concerned Authorities, including the Panchayat and PWD officials. 8. The above said, it is gratifying that at least, as matters now stand, the Panchayat appears to have woken up 4th and they are stated to have issued a notice to the respondent, as is evident from Ext.R2(b) produced along with their counter affidavit, demanding the said respondent to remove the “Arch” forthwith, under the provisions of Section 220 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act. However, it is still perturbing that they say that they have taken no further action thereon, solely because of the pendency of this writ petition, even though there were no interim orders interdicting such action from this Court. This Court cannot allow this situation to continue any further and deem it necessary and imperative to direct the Panchayat to take further action, as are required under law, against the 4th respondent immediately. This Court cannot allow this situation to continue any further and deem it necessary and imperative to direct the Panchayat to take further action, as are required under law, against the 4th respondent immediately. Resultantly, and particularly because the 4th respondent expressly concedes that they have not obtained any permission or consent from the Panchayat to construct the offending structure, I direct them to immediately take further action pursuant to Ext.R2(b) and remove the said structure using the full might of law as is duly sanctioned; and also take appropriate action against the 4th respondent for having made such an illegal construction, knowing it to be illegal and visit him with full consequences as are warranted under the applicable Statutes and Regulations. The afore exercise shall be completed by the respondent-Panchayat as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; and all expenses and charges for removing the “Arch” and for disposal of the debris shall be recovered from the 4th respondent, after following due procedure under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. After I completed dictation of this judgment, the learned Senior Government Pleader brought to my notice that the 4th respondent has, in fact, filed O.S.No.302 of 2018, before the Munsiff's Court Pala, incorrectly asserting that he has obtained a permit to construct the offending structure and therefore, that the said Court has directed the PWD, which has been arrayed therein as a defendant, to maintain status quo. When, I hear the learned Senior Government Pleader as afore, it is without any doubt that the averments of the 4th respondent before the Munsiff's Court are wholly contrary to the stand taken by them before this Court because, in this writ petition they unequivocally agree they did not obtain any such permit or consent before the structure was erected. I, therefore, am of the firm view that, notwithstanding the interim orders of the Civil Court, if any, in the above mentioned suit, the directions I have issued afore must be complied with by the PWD and the Panchayath. This writ petition is thus ordered.