IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 5734 of 2010(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. PARAVUR TOWN MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION, VYAPARA BHAVAN,NORTH PARAVUR REPRESENTED BY: (A)DIVAKARAN PILLAI,PRESIDENT (B)RAVI SIVARAM, SECRETARY. (C)P.P.PAULOSE,TREASURER,AT -DO- -DO- 2. PARAVUR TALUK MERCHANTS WELFARE SOCIETY, VYAPARA BHAVAN,NORTH PARAVUR,REPRESENTED BY: (A)BALAKRISHNAN,PRESIDENT (B)V.B.VENUGOPAL, SECRETARY & (C)SRINIVASAN,TREASURER,AT -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA) SRI.MAHESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MUNICIPALITY OF PARAVUR,REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY,PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY, NORTH PARAVUR,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. (*)ADDL.R2. THE SENIOR TOWN PLANNER, OFFICE OF DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, BEHIND GCDA, ERNAKULAM. (**)ADDL.R3 MOHANDAS, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI, THACHETH HOUSE, KADAKKARA KARA, EZHIKKARA VILLAGE. (*)ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 04/03/2010 IN I.A.NO.3030/10 (**)ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 08/06/2010 IN I.A.NO.3792/2010 ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI,SC,PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY FOR R1 SRI.R.AZAD BABU FOR ADDL.R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI C.M.SURESH BABU FOR ADDL.R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.5734/2010-N ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 8th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the stop memo issued by the Secretary of first respondent-Municipality as per Ext.P9. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the Municipality, the learned counsel appearing for the additional third respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the additional second respondent. 3. The petitioners herein are two organisations formed by the Merchants of the Paravur Town and Paravur Taluk. They decided to have a shopping complex-cum- auditorium and, accordingly, they entered into an agreement for sale with one Shri Mohandas, the additional third respondent herein for purchase of 16.665 cents of property. The possession of the property is stated to have been handed over in pursuance to the agreement for sale. An application was submitted for a building permit along with the necessary plans. Ext.P1 is the copy of the building permit issued for the construction of 3 storied building consisting of a shopping complex and an auditorium. Ext.P2 is the copy of the Non Objection Certificate issued by W.P.(C). No.5734/2010 -:2:- Commandant General Fire Services, Thiruvananthapuram. The inauguration of the building was held on 14/11/2002. It is submitted that the construction has been made in strict compliance with the approved plans and the rooms have been assigned to various shop owners and tenants. 4. Subsequently, a dispute arose with the additional third respondent which led to the petitioners filing a suit as O.S.No.183/2006 before the Sub Court, North Paravur seeking for specific performance of the agreement and Ext.P4 is the copy of the Judgment in the said suit. It is also mentioned that the additional third respondent has subsequently filed an application to the set aside the ex parte decree along with a petition to condone the delay. The matter is pending before the Sub Court. 5. Later, the petitioners applied for a building permit to construct residential flats above the existing shopping complex. The petitioners agreed to produce the Fire NOC and, after verifying various aspects, the first respondent issued the building permit as per Ext.P5. Thereafter, the application for Fire NOC was also submitted and, while the petitioners were continuing with the construction and had completed nearly, 90% of the construction, Ext.P9 stop memo has been issued. W.P.(C). No.5734/2010 -:3:- 6. Ext.P9 is issued mainly for non production of Fire NOC. The other reason pointed out therein is that there is some ambiguity while examining the documents produced evidencing the right of possession. Along with I.A.No.4521/2010, the petitioner has produced Ext.P16 certificate issued from the Office of the Fire and Rescue Services granting NOC. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the said question no longer arises. It is submitted that possession of 16.665 cents cannot be disputed and the suit stands decreed also. Further the said area is the car parking area for the building already constructed. 7. The first respondent-Municipality as well as the additional third respondent have filed separate counter affidavits. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the attempt of the Municipality is to unsettle the entire thing without any proper reasons and, therefore, the action is really mala fide. 9. The learned counsel for the Municipality submitted that they have only issued a stop memo in the matter to verify certain aspects which is perfectly justified under the Rules and the stop memo Ext.P9 is not a final order passed by the Secretary of the Municipality. In the course W.P.(C). No.5734/2010 -:4:- of the construction of the building, to seek certain clarifications, such a stop memo had been issued. There are various subsequent events pointed out by the learned counsel for the Municipality, which according to him will justify the stand taken by them. 10. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are not proceeding with the construction of the dining hall. It is also further submitted that with regard to the plot, namely, 16.665 cents, involved in the civil suit, the petitioners will not be making any constructions. It is further submitted that the parking area for the residential complex is shown separately as a plot which lies north of the existing compound and the extend of the property is 10 cents and above. 11. The additional second respondent also has filed a counter affidavit. The learned counsel for the said respondent addressed arguments on the issues involved. 12. The learned counsel for the Municipality submitted that if there are defects in the proceedings under the Rules, the Secretary is empowered to even cancel the permit and it is also submitted that such an action is in contemplation. W.P.(C). No.5734/2010 -:5:- 13. Ext.P9 is only a stop memo and is not a final order in the proceedings. Since the Secretary has not passed any final order in the matter, it is open to the petitioners to submit appropriate statement/objections along with the documents relied upon immediately and the Secretary will thereafter hear the parties and take a final decision within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms