IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 27862 of 2007(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.MOHAMMED, S/O. LATE ALAVI, PADAVANNA HOUSE, KOVILAKOM ROAD, MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. MANJERI MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPALITY OF MANJERI, MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SHAMSUDHEEN @ KUNHAPPA, S/O. MOHAMMED, KALLADITHODY HOUSE, MULLAMPARA, MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM. 3. ABDURAHIMAN @ MANU, S/O. MOHAMMED, KALLADITHODY HOUSE, MULLAMPARA, MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY FOR R2 & R3 SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SMT.SHEENA SAMUEL SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No. 27862 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who is aggrieved by the construction of a building by respondents 2 and 3, his neighbours on various grounds. The petitioner prays for a direction to the first respondent Municipality to stop the construction of the building without following the Kerala Municipalities Building Rules. It is the case of the petitioner that on being convinced of the violation of the Building Rules, the Municipality issued stop memo and even sought assistance from the police for implementation of the stop memo. Sri.T.K.Saidalikutty, counsel for respondents 3 and 4 would submit that those respondents are yet to receive any stop memo from the Municipality. They are constructing building strictly on the basis of the approved plan and on the strength of the building permit. The further prayers in the writ petition are that the Municipality should be directed to take action on Exts.P3 to P5. WPC.No.27862/07 2 2. A statement has been filed by the first respondent Municipality. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent builder. Along with the counter affidavit, copies of the building permit and the approved plan have been produced. In the statement filed by the Municipality it is conceded that since there was allegation regarding violation of building Rules, the Municipality issued stop memo to the petitioner on 17/09/2007 and that when that stop memo was not obeyed by respondents 2 and 3, the stop memo was enforced with the assistance of the police. 3. I heard Sri.T.K.Ajith Kumar, counsel for the petitioner, Sri.M.P.Ashok Kumar, counsel for the Municipality and Sri.T.K.Saidalikutty, counsel for respondents 2 and 3. I find merit in the submissions of Sri.M.P.Ashok Kumar that most of the grievances voiced through Exts.P3, P4 and P5 fall within the domain of a competent civil court and this court will not be justified in directing the Municipality to look into those grievances since the parties are already before the civil court. At the same time, it cannot be denied, that whether there is rule violation in the matter of construction or whether WPC.No.27862/07 3 there is deviation from the approved plan during the course of construction is a matter to be considered by the Municipality only. Going by the statement filed by the Municipality, stop memo was issued and constructions were stopped at the stage when the construction had reached very advanced stage. Since the party respondents are presently having notice regarding the stop memo, I direct them to file objections/explanations before the Municipality within two weeks from today. If objection/explanation is filed within the stipulated time, the Municipality will hear the petitioner as well as the party respondents and take a decision as to whether the provisional order should be confirmed or the petitioner should be permitted to continue with the construction. While taking decision, the Municipality will have due regard to the provisions of the Kerala Municipalities Building Rules and also the plan which is approved for construction. The other issues covered by Exts.P3, P4 and P5 will be settled by the Sub Court, Manjeri which is already in seizin of the matter. In this context, the petitioner is directed to inform respondents 2 and 3 in writing within seven days from today as to what all Rules have been WPC.No.27862/07 4 violated by them in the matter of construction and as to what is the deviation from the approved plan. Respondents 2 and 3 will file objection/explanation before the Municipality based on the information so conveyed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.27862/07 5