IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16963 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- AJITHA KUMARI, D/O.SAVITHRI, SALINI MANDIRAM, MITHRI NAGAR, KALLUMTHAZHAM, KILIKOLLUR KOLLAM BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE KOLAM CORPORATION , REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KOLLAM 2. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, KILIKOLLUR ZONAL, KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM BY SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON 11/06/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 16963 OF 2008 T ==================== Dated this the 11th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P5 and direct the respondents not to obstruct the repair works of the petitioner's building No.KP-XIII/803 of Kollam Corporation. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of 1.41 ares of property comprised in Sy.No.750/7/2 of Kilikollur Village and a building bearing No.KP-XIII/803 having a tiled roof. According to the petitioner, she purchased the property by Ext.P1 sale deed and since then, she has been remitting building tax, property tax and other such levies. It is stated that on 27/5/08 due to heavy rain, the tiled roof and a portion of back side wall of the building suffered damages and this was immediately reported to the 1st respondent. Ext.P4 is the photograph of the building in the damaged condition. Petitioner submits that without realising that it was unnecessary, she made an application to the respondents for permission to carry out repairs and that has been acknowledged by Ext.P5. When she attempted to make repairs, she was prevented by the officials of the 1st respondent and thereupon this writ petition has been filed. WPC 16963/08 :2 : 3. When the writ petition was taken up for consideration on 9/6/08, counsel also submitted that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, petitioner had received a communication from the 1st respondent declining the permission sought for. Despite the above, the contention raised was that in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 10 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, for carrying out repairs of an existing building, permit was not necessary. 4. The claims of the petitioner were contradicted by the standing counsel, who entered appearance on behalf of the 1st respondent. According to him, for any repair, a permit as contemplated under the Building Rules, is necessary. It was stated that on receipt of the application from the petitioner, that was considered and in view of the fact that the building was in an unsafe condition, the Corporation had declined to grant permit sought for by the petitioner. It was also contended that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order declining permit, the course open to the petitioner is to pursue the matter in appeal before the statutory committee and for that reason, according to the counsel, the writ petition was not maintainable. 5. I have considered the submissions made. WPC 16963/08 :3 : 6. As far as the maintainability of the writ petition is concerned, at the time when the writ petition was filed, the Corporation had not issued any order declining the permit sought for by the petitioner. Subsequently order was issued and in terms of the provisions contained in the Act, the statutory remedy of appeal is also provided for. However, the fact remains that on the filing of the writ petition, standing counsel appeared for the 1st respondent Corporation and he addressed the arguments on the entire matter and therefore, I do not think it proper to relegate the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedies. Further the issue raised does not involve resolution of any disputed question of facts. This is all the more so for the reason that petitioner justifiably contends that unless urgent orders are obtained, the remaining portion of the building will also collapse due to heavy rains. 7. The fact that the building referred to by the petitioner is in existence is not in dispute. The Corporation also has no case that in view of the instability of the building, they had initiated any action for its demolition or repair. The Corporation apparently had realised the instability of the building only when the petitioner made application for effecting repair to the damaged wall and the roof. In view of this, I do not WPC 16963/08 :4 : find any bonafides in the statement made at the bar that it was because of the instability of the building that the Corporation has declined permission to the petitioner. 8. Rule 10 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the rules, no building permit shall be necessary for executing the works mentioned therein which do not otherwise violate any provisions regarding the general building requirements, structural stability and fire safety requirements prescribed in the rules. Rule 10(vii) provides that permit is not necessary for effecting petty repairs to the building and pitched roof. 9. All that the petitioner wants is to effect repair of the wall and the roof. In my view, in view of the provisions contained in Rule 10(vii) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, the repair which the petitioner wants to carry out being only petty in nature, a permit is not necessary. Therefore, irrespective of the order that is now passed declining the application made by the petitioner, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to carry out repairs to the roof and the wall of the building in question. 10. The fact that the petitioner is permitted to carry out repair as above does not mean that irrespective of the structural instability of the WPC 16963/08 :5 : building, the Municipality has no option but to remain a silent spectator. If according to the 1st respondent, the building is not a stable one, there are provisions in the Municipality's Act which can be pressed into service by the 1st respondent and it is always open to the 1st respondent to issue appropriate orders either for compelling repair of the building or for even its demolition. Therefore, the acceptance of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that they are entitled to carryout repairs without obtaining a building permit, does not in any manner mean that the 1st respondent is deprived of its statutory powers if the building is otherwise not stable. Therefore, directing that the petitioner will be permitted to carry out repairs of the building in question, this writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp