IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 11945 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ PAULACHAN P.C.,S/O. CHAKKAPPAN PAREKKATTIL HOUSE, PEECHANIKKAD PULIYANAM P.O., ANGAMALY P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 572 BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, ANGAMALY 683 572 2. THE SECRETARY, ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY ANGAMALY 683 572 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4. RUBY JOSEPH, D/O. JOSEPH THACHIL HOUSE, OLD TREASURY, ROAD ANGAMALY PO ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 572 BY SRI V.M.KURIAN, SC, ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHD.ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W.P.(C).No.11945/2008-V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 8th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T On this writ petition coming up for admission, Sri.V.M.Kurian, Standing Counsel for the Municipality took notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. The learned Government Pleader Sri.Mohamed Anzar took notice for the third respondent. In the nature of the decision I am taking in this writ petition, it is not necessary to issue notice to the fourth respondent. 2. The complaint of the petitioner is regarding a building permit which has been issued to the fourth respondent. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent suppressed material facts and misrepresented facts before the second respondent with regard to the existence of a pathway, which is provided to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 title documents. He has a further case that the statutory rules have not been followed in the matter of granting approval to the plan submitted by the fourth respondent for the construction. WP(C) No.11945/2008-V -:2:- 3. Without going into the merits of the matter, I dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P2 as an information received by him as contemplated by Rule 16 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, conduct necessary enquiries, issue notice to the fourth respondent and the petitioner and take a final decision on Ext.P2. In Ext.P4 letter which was given by the Secretary of the first respondent to the Circle Inspector of Police, the Secretary has entered a finding that the petitioner's claim that he is having a right of way is unfounded. It is seen that such a finding is entered without reference to Ext.P1 title document. I, therefore, direct the Secretary of the Municipality to take a decision on Ext.P2 without being unduly influenced by his own Ext.P4 letter to the Circle Inspector of Police. Decision as directed above shall be taken at the earliest and at any rate within two months on receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is needless to mention that the constructions which are being made by the fourth respondent will be subject to the decision to be taken by the Secretary on Ext.P2. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, Judge ms