IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 WA.No. 58 of 2009() ------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.35277/2008 Dated 01/01/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS IN WP(C): ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. FR.BERNADINE.M.LOUIS, BETHSAIDA HERMITAGE, PULINKUDI, CHOWARA P.O. 2. FREDERICK THOMAS BETHSAIDA HERMITAGE, PULINKUDI, CHOWARA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.K.JAGADEESH SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT IN WP(C): ------------------------------------------------------------------ KOTTUKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KOTTUKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. R.T.PRADEEP THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss J.B. Koshy,Ag.C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. -------------------------------------- W.A. No. 58 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009 Judgment Koshy,Ag.C.J. When appellant/petitioner started construction of a building, it was stopped by Ext.P6 order contending that it is an unauthorised construction violating Coastal Regulation Zone Notification. Hence, it was directed to stop the construction under rule 19 (1) of Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. Thereafter, Ext.P7 order was passed. It is contended that local authority cannot stop construction for violation of CRZ Regulation. It is not violation of the Building Rules that is alleged. It is also submitted that petitioner has not violated CRZ norms. The learned Judge directed the petitioner to file an application. The statutory authority will decide whether CRZ is applicable to the construction made by the petitioner. Coastal Management authority was directed to pass final orders. Allegation is that petitioner has violated the CRZ norms. That has to be decided by the statutory authority after considering disputed facts. In such circumstances, it is not possible for this court to allow the construction without deciding that W.A. No. 58/2009 2 question. Therefore, we direct the statutory authority to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within the time frame fixed by the learned single Judge. Even though concerned Municipal authority or authorities under the CRZ Regulations are not made as parties, petitioner can produce a copy of the impugned judgment as well as this judgment so that they can act on the same. Appeal is disposed of. J.B.Koshy Acting Chief Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon Judge vaa W.A. No. 58/2009 3 J.B. KOSHY, Ag.C.J. AND P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,J. ------------------------------------- W.A.No. /2006 ------------------------------------- Judgment Date:9th January, 2009