IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 28267 of 2007(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MOHAMMED HABEEBULLA, 'HABEEBINA', PONOTH ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR SMT.PRIYA VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-11. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.C.M.SURESH BABU,SC,COCHIN CORPORATI FOR R1 G.P. SHRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.28267 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 11th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 order issued by the 1st respondent by which Ext.P1 permit issued by the Corporation in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that the construction is in violation of the plan sanctioned by the Corporation for such construction. Apparently the same is based on an order of the Government. The allegations on which the action has been taken are that certain rules applicable to high-raise buildings, in which category the construction made by the petitioner falls, have not been complied with, as a result of which the Government has issued Ext.R1(a) order to the Corporation to cancel the permit issued to the petitioner and to take appropriate proceedings against the construction. But along with the reply affidavit the petitioner has now produced Ext.P6 letter from the Regional Joint Director of the Town Planning Department to the Director of Town Planning Thiruvananthapuram, in which it has been found that if appropriate provision for fire fighting is made, there is no other infirmities in the construction made. 2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel and the learned Government Pleader. 3. I find that the impugned proceedings have been initiated 2 only on the basis of the letter from the Government which is produced as Ext.R1(a). No show cause notice or hearing has been granted to the petitioner before cancelling the permit or the Government taking the decision conveyed to the Corporation by Ext.R1(a). In the above circumstances, it is only appropriate that the 2nd respondent considers the matter finally and passes a speaking order considering Ext.P6 also. Accordingly, there would be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the entire matter after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and to pass final orders expeditiously. Till such orders are passed, the interim order passed in this writ petition shall continue to be in force. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge