IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 35936 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ P.T.ROY, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.THEYOCHAN, RESIDING AT PALACKAL HOUSE, SEA VIEW WARD, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, P.T.SEBASTIAN, S/O.THEYOCHAN, PALACKALL HOUSE, SEA VIEW WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.E.D.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- THE SECRETARY, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY ALAPPUZHA. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 35936 OF 2009 (J) ===================== Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he owns 20.750 cents of land in Sy.No.412/55 of Aryad South Village. He submitted Ext.P6 plan and an application for a building permit for constructing a residential house. On the basis of Ext.P6 plan and the application made, he was issued Ext.P2 building permit on 7/4/2008 enabling him to construct a building as applied for by him. Accordingly, he constructed the building and submitted Ext.P4 dated 21/10/2009, an application for numbering the building and issuing an occupancy certificate. As there was no response to Ext.P4, the writ petition was filed praying for a direction to the respondents to number the building and issue occupancy certificate to the building in question. 2. On behalf of the Municipality, a statement has been filed by the standing counsel. In the statement, the fact that the building permit was issued, that the plan was approved and that construction of the building was complete have all been admitted. However, they say that the building is constructed in violation of WPC No. 35936/09 :2 : the provisions contained in the Coastal Regulation Zone Rules. According to them, in view of the above allegation, they have referred the matter to the Coastal Zone Management Authority and that their report is awaited. It is also stated that based on the directions of Chief Town Planner, the Town Planner, Alleppey inspected the construction site of the petitioner and issued Annexure R(1) dated 21/10/08 requiring the Secretary to take action against the petitioner. There is also an allegation that the building in question has been constructed as a resort. It is therefore stated that until the clarification is received from the Coastal Zone Management Authority, the Municipality is not in a position to take any action on Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner. 3. When the statement was filed, the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. In so far as the allegation made by the respondents that the building has been constructed as a resort, violating the permit and approved plan, petitioner submits that Ext.P6 is the approved plan and that there has not been any departure from the plan approved by the Municipality. He also WPC No. 35936/09 :3 : has produced Ext.P8, the approval of the Town Planner on the basis of which the building was allegedly constructed. 4. In so far as the allegation that the building has been constructed in violation of the CRZ notification, while the petitioner denies this averment, he is also relying on Ext.P9, a list of persons who have constructed buildings in the area in question. According to the petitioner, there is also a resort near to the petitioner's building against which also no action has been taken by the respondents. 5. Thus the fact that building permit has been issued and plan has been approved, that the petitioner has completed construction and applied for occupancy certificate and to number the building in question are not in dispute. Normally a person who has constructed the building is entitled to have his building numbered and issued occupancy certificate. But however, if as stated by the Municipality, there is violation of the CRZ notification or the building permit, that certainly is a matter which the Municipality has to take into account when the petitioner's application for assigning number to the building and to issue WPC No. 35936/09 :4 : occupancy certificate is considered. It cannot be disputed that the Authority to clarify the status of the area in question is the Coastal Zone Management Authority. 6. As already stated, according to the Municipality, they have already taken up the matter with the Coastal Zone Management Authority and a report is awaited. Having regard to all these facts, I do not think it will be proper for this Court to direct the Municipality to number the building or to issue occupancy certificate before obtaining the report of the Coastal Zone Management Authority. At the same time, it is necessary that the Municipality should take steps for expediting the proceedings of the Coastal Zone Management Authority and on that basis, consider the application made by the petitioner. 7. Having regard to all this, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the Municipality shall take expeditious steps for obtaining the report from the Coastal Zone Management Authority and on receipt thereof, shall pass final orders on Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner for numbering the building and issuing the occupancy certificate. It is directed that this process WPC No. 35936/09 :5 : shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 8. I should also mention that there is total negligence or abdication of duties by the Municipal authorities. An applicant for building permit may not be familiar with the CRZ status of his plot. But if an application for building permit is received, the Secretary of the Municipality should have verified the details of the proposed site and ascertained whether the plot offered fell under CRZ categories, where construction cannot be undertaken, and if any of the findings are against the applicant, permit should not be granted. Here, such an exercise was not undertaken and the permit was blindly issued and thus the petitioner was allowed to make construction. Not only that, the Secretary did not do anything even after receiving Annexure R1 dated 21/10/2008. In this case, the failure of the Secretary of the Municipality has made the petitioner invest his life's savings and he is now made to run from pillar to post. Although these failures do not entitle the petitioner to claim that his building should be numbered or that occupancy certificate issued, still this is a WPC No. 35936/09 :6 : matter which should engage the attention of the authorities concerned. I therefore direct that the Registry shall sent a copy of this judgment to the Director of Urban Affairs, who will conduct necessary enquiry and take appropriate action in the matter. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp