IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 33468 of 2010(G) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- T.N.ASHOK KUMAR,S/O.NARAYANA PANICKER, ARUNALAYAM HOUSE,WARD NO.19, PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY,PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SRI.ALAN PAPALI SMT.ANITHA MATHAI MUTHIRENTHY SRI.PRAVEEN.K.JOY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - 682 025. 2. THE SECRETARY,CORPORATION OF KOCHI - 682 025. 3. V.T.JOHN,AGED 57 YEARS,S/O.P.J.THOMAS, P.B.NO.8003,DUBAI,U.A.E,REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY,GEORGE PANICKER,S/O.LATE.P.KOSHI PANICKER AGED 64 YEARS,RESIDING AT "PLAVILA',TAGORE NAGAR, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE,KADAVANTHRA.P.O,PINM-682 020. 4. N.BALAN,AGED 67 YEARS,S/O.KUTTAN NANU, KALANILAYAM,CC 10/1434,THAMARAPARAMBU,KOCHI.P.O, FORT KOCHI VILLAGE,KOCHIK TALUK,ERNAKULAM, PIN-682001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU R3 BY ADVS. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN SRI.NIREESH MATHEW R4 BY ADVS. SRI.T.MADHU SRI.B.S.SURAJ KRISHNA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 33468 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1 order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institution, Trivandrum, in appeal No.722/2010. The appeal was filed by the 3rd respondent herein against building permit issued by respondents 1 and 2 in favour of the petitioner, for the construction of a multi storied commercial complex. 2. Ext.P1 is assailed on the ground that the Tribunal had appreciated sustainability of the building permit vis-a-vis compliance of the relevant Rules, on the basis of an impression that the total height of the building is 18.50 Meters. According to the petitioner, even though application for building permit was submitted along with a plan showing the total height of building as 18.5 Meters, the approval was given only for construction of the building with a height of 13 Meters. Therefore, considering the applicability of the relevant rules on the basis of the total WP(C) 33468/2010 2 height of the building for which sanction was accorded, there is no violation of the Rules, is the contention. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, a copy of the appeal petition filed before Tribunal is produced, as Ext.R3(b). Apart from other contentions, a specific contention was seen raised to the effect that the building is having a height of 14.6m and therefore the open space left are not sufficient and is not in compliance with the provision contained in Kerala Municipality Building Rules. 4. On a perusal of Ext.P1, the impugned order of the Tribunal, it is evident that the Tribunal had passed the order after perusal of relevant records produced by respondents 1 and 2. In para 11 of Ext.P1 it is mentioned that, as per the application height of the building is 18.50 Meters. Even though it is mentioned that the approved plans are found in page 45-52 of the files, apparently, it is evident that the Tribunal had not noticed the fact that the approval was given with a variation in the total height. I It is evident that if the approval is given not for a building having a height of 18.50 Meter. Hence it is necessary that the the relevant Rules under the Kerala WP(C) 33468/2010 3 Municipality Building Rules need be evaluated on the basis that the height of the building is 13 Meters only. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I am of the view that the matter requires re-consideration by the Tribunal. However, it is made clear that the parties will be at liberty to adjudicate all the issues before the Tribunal. 5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P1 order of the Tribunal is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to that Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal after, affording reasonable opportunity to all parties concerned. The issues raised by all the parties concerned shall be re-examined on the basis of relevant provisions and on the basis of all material aspects of the building permit. 6. The parties shall be afforded with opportunity to file additional pleadings if any required. The appeal shall be disposed of at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. WP(C) 33468/2010 4 7. Till such time fresh disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal, status quo with respect to the construction existing as on today shall be maintained. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) 33468/2010 5