IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 12975 of 2008(T) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- SAROJINI, W/O.THANKAPPAN, AGED 58 YEARS, KARAMVELIL HOUSE, CHERUTHONY KARA, IDUKKI COLONY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN SRI.RAJU VADAKKEKARA RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SECRETARY, VAZHATHOPE GRAMA PANCHAYATH (SPECIAL GRADE), THADIYANPADU P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT PIN:685 602. 2. SUHARA, S/O.SHAJAHAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, THACHUKULATHU HOUSE, CHERUTHONY KARA, IDUKKI COLONY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. JOSE CHERIAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PUNCHAKUNNEL HOUSE, CHERUTHONY KARA, IDUKKI COLONY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL FOR R.1 SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY FOR R2 SRI.ANIL GEORGE FOR R2 SMT.V.A.SARITHA FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.12975/2008 T APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P1(A): COPY OF THE PLAN APPROVED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 7/06/07. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER IN I.A.160/07 IN O.S.29/07. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 31/12/07 OF 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 12975 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: JULY 17, 2008 JUDGMENT Implementation of Ext.P5 is what is sought for by the petitioner. 2. Petitioner submits that Exts.P1 and P1(a) building permits were granted by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent. It is stated that as the construction was in deviation of the approved permit granted, Ext.P2 complaint was made. Complaining that there was no action taken on Ext.P2, petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court as WP(C) 33924/2007. That case was disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P2 and pass appropriate orders. It is also stated by the petitioner that in the meanwhile he had approached the Munsiff's Court, Idukki and filed OS 29/2007 in which Ext.P3 interim order of injunction was passed. According to the petitioner, irrespective of these orders, the 2nd respondent completed WP(C) 12975 of 2008 2 construction violating the terms of Exts.P1 and P1(a) permits. 3. It is stated that in pursuance to the direction of this Court contained in the aforesaid judgment, 1st respondent heard the parties and passed Ext.P4 order. In Ext.P4 it is stated that on inspection by the 1st respondent, it was found that three irregularities were committed by the 2nd respondent in completing the construction. The allegation in this writ petition is that despite the finding in Ext.P3, the 2nd respondent is not curing the irregularities noticed. 4. A statement has been filed by the 1st respondent wherein it is stated that out of the three defects, Sl.Nos.1 and 2 have already been rectified. In so far as the third one is concerned, the 1st respondent has stated that the works for the rectification thereof is going on. It is also undertaken by the 1st respondent that if the 2nd respondent fails to rectify the defect, he shall take appropriate action in this regard. WP(C) 12975 of 2008 3 5. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent also undertakes that necessary remedial action will be taken and completed on an expeditious basis. This writ petition is therefore disposed of directing that the 1st respondent will conduct an inspection of the premises and satisfy itself that defect No.3 noticed in Ext.P4 is rectified. It is further directed that in case the defect is not rectified by the 2nd respondent, appropriate action in this behalf shall be taken by the 1st respondent. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-