IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29057 of 2009(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ N.J.ALEXANDER, THEKKETHALAKKAL HOUSE, PUTHANANGADI POST, KOTTAYAM BY ADVS.MR.MATHEW JOHN (K) MR.AJEESH K.SASI RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 2. KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, REP.BY THE SECRETARY,MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KOTTAYAM(C)SECTION, KSEB, KOTTAYAM. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. MR.SIBY MATHEW, MR.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU. R3 BY ADV MR.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.29057 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner put up a Residential Apartment Complex. It appears that violation of KMBR and other Rules were alleged and action taken by the Municipality as directed by the Government. In terms of the statutory provisions and the Constitutional setting, from which the Municipality works, the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions issued Ext.P8 order on 19.8.2009, setting aside the proceedings taken merely at the behest of the Government. The Secretary of the Municipality was directed to initiate fresh proceedings without any unnecessarily delay, if there are reasons for doing so. 2. This writ petition is filed on 14.10.2009 by the builder alleging that the electricity Wpc 29057/09 2 charges he has to pay for the building are so oofingly high compared to the normal remittances he might have had to pay treating the Complex as residential one. This situation is attributed to the fact that the building has not been appropriately dealt with by granting numbers. He therefore, seeks a direction to the KSEB to grant connection, as if it is for domestic purpose and also to the municipal authorities to do the needful to number the building, etc. 3. A perusal of the materials, Exts.P1 to P7 essentially sounded caution against the issuance of such a direction, as of now merely because the Municipal Secretary had thought it fit for himself to play a dormant role, in spite of the directions of the Tribunal to take action without unnecessary delay, if there are reasons to do so. Today, the learned counsel Wpc 29057/09 3 for the Municipality states that on 19.10.2009, that is day before yesterday, the Secretary had issued notice. This court posed to itself a question whether a Municipal Secretary is paid his salary to slumber on the files or whether the establishment of the Municipality could deal with the right of citizens in such a casual manner in spite of being cautioned appropriately even by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. More than one and a half months have gone through after Ext.P8 order was issued. The matter relates to an Apartment Complex. Huge funds are involved in the construction activities. The commercial content of such transactions also cannot be ignored. There are provisions in the Municipal laws which provide time-bound disposal of applications. There are also deeming provisions which become operational with passage of time. Wpc 29057/09 4 If statutory officers permit such deeming provisions to become operational, merely because of their lethargic attitude in the discharge of public and statutory duties, the very concept of a deeming provision would generate another cozy seat of corruption. Nepotism, favouritism, malafide and what not. In so far as the case in hand is concerned, I find no reason whatsover for the Municipal Secretary and his subordinates dealing with that file to have delayed the matter like this. The learned counsel for the petitioner offers that all rectifications as are required would even be completed within a very short time. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is ordered directing that the petitioner will appear before the Secretary of the Municipality or make appropriate appearance through proper representation on 28.10.2009 and state on Wpc 29057/09 5 affidavit whether all rectifications have been carried out. If such an affidavit is received, the Municipal Secretary will ensure that the site is inspected and final orders issued either way on or before 31.10.2009 without fail. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/22/10