JUDGMENT : Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioner, who is a devotee of Lord Ayyappa of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Erumeli Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, which are temples under the management of the 4 th respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, had earlier filed W.P.(C)No.24088 of 2025, which was dismissed as withdrawn by Ext.P7 judgment dated 03.07.2025, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition with proper parties in the party array. In paragraph 4 of Ext.P7 judgment, this Court noticed the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the 8 th respondent Erumeli Grama Panchayat, on instructions received from the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, that no building permit has been granted for the construction of a temple for ‘Vapura Swamy’ at Erumeli, and also the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the 9 th respondent Vishwa Hindu Parishad, as instructed by the learned instructing counsel, that Vishwa Hindu Parishad has absolutely no connection whatsoever with the construction of the temple for ‘Vapura Swamy’ at Erumeli. 2. In this writ petition filed on 04.07.2025, the petitioner has arrayed the 11 th respondent, the owner of 49 cents of land comprised in Block No.024, Survey No.102/4/3/1 of Erumeli Thekku Village, where the construction of the temple for ‘Vapura Swamy’ at Erumeli is going on. The document marked as Ext.P2 is a copy of the relevant page of the encumbrance record of the said property. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the installation of the Balalaya for Vapura Swamy is scheduled to be held on 07.07.2025, with subsequent ceremonies on 12.07.2025. In the writ petition, it is alleged that there is involvement of the 9 th respondent Vishwa Hindu Parishad in the construction of Vapura Swamy Temple at Erumeli, and that the construction of the temple, in the property covered by Ext.P2 encumbrance record, is without obtaining development permit/building permit from the 8 th respondent Erumeli Grama Panchayat. 3. On 04.07.2025, when this writ petition came up for admission, it was admitted on file. The learned Senior Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 3 and 10, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 4 to 7 and the learned Standing Counsel for Erumeli Grama Panchayat for the 8 th respondent. 3. On 04.07.2025, when this writ petition came up for admission, it was admitted on file. The learned Senior Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 3 and 10, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 4 to 7 and the learned Standing Counsel for Erumeli Grama Panchayat for the 8 th respondent. The learned Senior Counsel entered appearance for the 9 th respondent, as instructed by the learned instructing counsel. Urgent notice by special messenger was ordered to the 11 th respondent, returnable by today (07.07.2025). This Court granted an interim order on 04.07.2025. Paragraphs 6 to 9 of that order read thus; “6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out the statutory provisions contained in Rule 4(2) and also Rule 5, read with the Schedule thereto (Sl.No.5) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules , 2019, in order to contend that the construction that is being undertaken in the property of the 11 th respondent, referred to in Ext.P2 relevant page of the encumbrance record, is an unauthorised construction without obtaining necessary development permit/building permit. The learned counsel would also point out the provisions contained in Section 252 (1)(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994. 7. The learned Standing Counsel for the 8 th respondent Erumeli Grama Panchayat would submit that no application for development permit/building permit under the provisions of Rule 5 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules , 2019 has been made by the 11 th respondent or any other person having interest in that land, for undertaking the construction of Vapura Swamy Temple. 8. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the 9 th respondent Vishwa Hindu Parishad, on instructions through the learned instructing counsel, is that the said organisation has absolutely no connection with any activity being undertaken in the property in question for construction of Vapura Swamy Temple. 9. 8. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the 9 th respondent Vishwa Hindu Parishad, on instructions through the learned instructing counsel, is that the said organisation has absolutely no connection with any activity being undertaken in the property in question for construction of Vapura Swamy Temple. 9. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the preliminary submissions made at the Bar, we deem it appropriate to issue an interim order directing the Secretary of the 8 th respondent Erumeli Grama Panchayat to take necessary steps to ensure that no construction activities of Vapura Swamy Temple at Erumeli are undertaken in the property owned by the 11 th respondent, referred to in Ext.P2 relevant pages of the encumbrance record, without obtaining necessary development permit/building permit, as per the mandate of Rule 5 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules and complying with other statutory requirements. In case any police assistance is necessary, it is for the Secretary of the 8 th respondent Grama Panchayat to approach the 10 th respondent Station House Officer, Erumeli Police Station, invoking the provisions under Section 252 (1)(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , in which event, the Station House Officer shall render necessary assistances, as per the statutory mandate of Section 252 (1)(b). It would be open to the 10 th respondent Station House Officer to report the issue to the District Police Chief, Kottayam, if found necessary, in order to ensure that there is no law and order issues in the locality.” 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and 10, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 4 to 7, the learned Standing Counsel for Erumeli Grama Panchayat for the 8 th respondent, the learned Senior Counsel for the 9 th respondent and also Sri.P.K. Suresh Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel for the 11 th respondent, as instructed by Sri.Santheep Ankarath, the learned instructing counsel. 5. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the 11 th respondent, as instructed by the learned instructing counsel, would submit that a small building constructed by the said respondent in the property having an extent of 49 cents in Block No.024, Sy.No.102/4/3/1 of Erumeli Thekku Village, for storing pooja materials for the purpose of performing certain poojas, has already been demolished since the said construction was one made without obtaining building permit from the 8 th respondent Erumeli Grama Panchayat. The 11 th respondent has no intention to construct any temple in the property in question, without complying with the statutory requirements of the provisions referred to in the order of this Court dated 04.07.2025. For the time being, the 11 th respondent intends to perform certain poojas in the property in question. 6. The learned Standing Counsel for the 8 th respondent Erumeli Grama Panchayat, on instructions from the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, would submit that the 11 th respondent was issued with a stop memo on 05.07.2025 regarding the construction undertaken in the property in question, without complying with the statutory requirements of the provisions referred to in the order of this Court dated 04.07.2025. On receipt of the said stop memo, the 11 th respondent had already removed the construction made in the said property. 7. During the course of arguments, it is not in serious dispute that the construction made by the 11 th respondent in the property in question, in respect of which a stop memo was issued on 05.07.2025 by the 8 th respondent Erumeli Grama Panchayat, had already been demolished. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of after recording the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the 11th respondent, as instructed by the learned instructing counsel, and that of the learned Standing Counsel for the 8th respondent Grama Panchayat that the building constructed by the 11th respondent in the property having an extent of 49 cents in Block No.024, Sy.No.102/4/3/1 of Erumeli Thekku Village, had already been demolished. The further submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the 11th respondent that the said respondent has no intention to construct any temple in the property in question, without complying with the statutory requirements of the provisions referred to in the order of this Court dated 04.07.2025, is recorded. The further submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the 11th respondent that the said respondent has no intention to construct any temple in the property in question, without complying with the statutory requirements of the provisions referred to in the order of this Court dated 04.07.2025, is recorded. The direction contained in the order of this Court dated 04.07.2025, directing the 10th respondent Station House Officer to maintain the law and order in the locality, if found necessary, after reporting the issue to the District Police Chief, Kottayam, shall continue to be in force.