IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2007 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1929 Con.Case(C).No. 1240 of 2007(S) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.31974/2004 Dated 12/01/2007 .................... PETITIONER --------------------- MRS.KAMALA RAPHEAL, W/O.C.J.RAPHEAL, CHERIAPARAMBIL HOUSE, HOUSEWIFE, AGED 58, RESIDING AT EARLS, 13/519A, CHUNGAM, FEROKE P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.F.THOMAS (SR.) SRISHIJU VARGHEESE SRI.C.S.YESUDAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- SRI.ABDUL JABBAR, S/O LATE ALI AKBAR, AGED 52, MANISSERY HOUSE, AMMAYUR, MANJERI-3, SECRETARY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, FEROKE. BY SRI.M.V.BOSE THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ------------------------------ C.O.C. NO. 1240 OF 2007 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October , 2007 JUDGMENT A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the Secretary of the Municipality. I have heard the submissions of Sri.P.F.Thomas, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.V.Bose, the learned counsel for the respondent. Having regard to the submissions addressed, I am in agreement with Sri.Bose, who submits that it will not be proper to initiate contempt action against the respondent and I drop the Contempt of Court Case. However, I find that the plight of the petitioner continues to be hard. In paragraph 2 of the counter affidavit it is stated as follows: “2. Annexure A5 Order is passed strictly in compliance of Annexure-A2 Judgment of this Hon'ble Court. Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 are made applicable to this Panchayat. Annexure-A5 order is passed with the good intention of extending whatever possible help to the complainant as contemplated under law and in strict compliance of the Judgment of this Honourable court. The defects pointed out by this respondent can be remedied without any complications in the following manner. 5.5 metres distance from High Way can be easily complied with if a small portion facing National High way in triangular shape is remained. Enough parking space also would be there as contemplated in Table 5 under Rule 34(2). Rule 24 (2) of the Building rules reads as follows:- WPC No.1240/2007 2 “(2). In case a group of buildings are to be put up within any plot belonging to the same owner or by different owners of adjoining lands jointly the area of the land remaining after accounting for the mandatory front, rear and side yards from the boundary of the plot shall be considered as buildable area of the plot where the buildings may be constructed subject to the conditions regarding floor area ratio, coverage, access, light and ventilation, etc. for the whole plot, distance in between the various blocks within the area shall be minimum 2 metres for buildings upto 10 metres hight and 3 metres exceeding that height”. As both the buildings belong to the complainant she deserves a special consideration also. Two metres distance is there between the 2 buildings. 24(3) of KMBR is to be complied with. More than 3 metres are there even now. Regarding the deficiencies a decision can be taken by this Honourable court. In Clause 3 of A5 it is specifically pointed out that maximum justice should be done to Smt.Kamala Raphael. At the same time it should not violate the building rules. Deficiencies of size of steps can be rectified at the time of construction of stair case as contemplated under Rule 39. With regards to defects pointed out under rule 56 (2) this Honourable Court can issue appropriate direction on the basis of decision of sub court. Sanitary facilities also are to be provided as contemplated under Rule 56 (7).” 2. I direct the petitioner to comply with the suggestions/directions given by the respondent for making the constructions already made by the petitioner in conformity with the statutory rules. The petitioner will comply with those directions/suggestion within one month from today. Thereafter, the WPC No.1240/2007 3 petitioner will request the respondent for a local inspection. The respondent will reconsider the question of assigning number to the construction put up by the petitioner on the basis of what is revealed in the local inspection. In order to enable the petitioner to do that I quash Ext.P3. I expect that the respondent will take a lenient view in the matter of considering the circumstances which attend on this case particularly since the objections raised by the neighbours have been found to be absolutely unsustainable by a competent Civil court. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. dpk