IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 37235 of 2007(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ DR.PRATHAP KUMAR, CARDIOLOGIST, P.R.S. HOSPITAL, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT `SAMBHAVI', ASRAMOM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KERALA, DEPT. OF LOCAL SELF GOVT., SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. KOLLAM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, KOLLAM. 4. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM. R1-R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR R3-R4 BY ADV.MR.C.UNNIKRISHNAN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.37235 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 15th February, 2008 JUDGMENT The grievance voiced by the petitioner, a qualified medical practitioner and Cardiologist who is desirous of establishing a Super Specialty Hospital in his home town is that the application submitted by him for the construction of a Super Specialty Hospital is not being considered favourably by the Corporation. He has a further grievance that the draft notification regarding the new zoning regulations in the master plan relating to the Kollam town which was published vide G.O.(MS)No.152/2007/LSGD dated 7.6.2007 has not been finalised even though similar draft notifications relating to other town in the State have been finalised. Producing documents Exts.P1 to P3, the petitioner points out that pursuant to the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Sayeesh Kumar v. State of Kerala (2005(4) KLT 1027) only Ext.P4 draft notification was issued in respect of Kollam town. The delay in finalisation is resulting in hardship to the petitioner and hence raising grounds A to F, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs: 1. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to finalise Ext.P4 forthwith. W.P.C.No.37235/07 - 2 - 2. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 3 and 4 to sanction Ext.P1 forthwith if the same is in accordance with Ext.P4. 3. Declare that the petitioner is entitled to proceed with his project covered by Ext.P1 notwithstanding the finalisation of Ext.P4. Considering the Writ Petition, I directed Mr.C.Unnikrishnan, Standing Counsel for the Corporation as well as the learned Government Pleader who had taken notice on behalf of the Government to file statements as to whether the constructions proposed by the petitioner can be permitted under the draft scheme if it is finalised. Accordingly, separate statements have been filed by the Govt. Pleader as well as the Standing Counsel for the Corporation. The Statement filed by the Government Pleader is to the effect that based on the publication of the draft notification and the objections received in response to that, a hearing was conducted and on the basis of such hearing the Chief Town Planner, Trivandrum has furnished certain modifications to be effected in the draft scheme and that the Government is taking all steps for the early publication of the final notification. The final notification will be issued shortly. 2. The statement filed by the Standing Counsel for the Corporation will show that there are essentially five guidelines to be W.P.C.No.37235/07 - 3 - complied with by the petitioner as per the draft scheme. The first guideline is that width of the road should be 12 meters or more either existing or proposed. It is stated that the above guideline is fully satisfied. As regards the second guideline which is to the effect that the depth of the land should be 50 meters from the road, it is stated that this guideline is not satisfied since the total depth of the petitioner's land is 138 meters from the road margin. As regards this guideline, the argument of Mr.Rajendran is that it is not correct to say that this guideline is not satisfied. The situation that the total depth is 138 meters is a plus point for the petitioner and not a minus point. I accept the above argument of Mr.Rajendran. I hold that the second guideline is satisfied. As regards guidelines 3 and 4 which are relating to minimum extent of land and coverage, it is stated that these guidelines are satisfied. Guideline No.5 is regarding FAR. It is stated that as against permitted FAR of 1, FAR taken as per plan is 1.65. Mr.Rajendran would submit that the present proposal is to construct a seven storied building including two underground floors. He submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied with permit for construction of five floors inclusive of the two underground floors. It is not in dispute that if construction of only five floors as stated by Mr.Rajendran is W.P.C.No.37235/07 - 4 - permitted, FAR will be one or even below one. 3. Under these circumstances, I direct the Corporation to take an early decision on the petitioner's application for permit for construction of a Super Specialty Hospital in the light of the observations contained hereinabove. Permit will be granted for the construction of five floors including two underground floors so that the guideline regarding FAR will not be violated. Needful will be done by the Corporation at the earliest and at any rate within three weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE