IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 13973 of 2004(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- A.V.JOSE, MANAGING PARTNER, ALUKKAS JEWELLERY, TC NO.37/890, PADMA PADAM, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKATESH RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT(E) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL.R4. M.KRISHNAN NAIR, PRESIDENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITIZENS PROTECTION FORUM, REGISTER NO.1351/1990, PADMA NAGAR, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM * IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 13/11/07 ON I.A.7388/04. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.P.SREEKRISHNAN. ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON,SC,TVM CORPN. - R2 & R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).13973/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1:- COPY OF ORDER ISSUED IN A PRINTED FORM BY THE SECREATARY OF THE CORPORATION DATED 28/07/2001 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE SAID REPLY DATED 07/08/2001 TO THE SECREATARY BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION ORDER DATED 23/08/2001 OF THE SECRETARY TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30/11/2001 ADDRESSED TO THE MINISTER FOR LOCAL ADMINISTRATION BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5:- COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 06/12/2001 ISSUED BY THE SECREATARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (E) DEPARTMENT. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 07/07/2003 FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO THE PETITONER. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN THIS REGARD DATED 19/04/2004 BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF METER BOX. EXT.P9:- COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 25/05/2007. EXT.P10:- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PRESENT LOCATION OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. EXT.P11:- COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE SECREATARY OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION DATED 17/09/2007. EXT.P12:- COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS SUBMITTED TO EXHIBIT P.11 DATED 22/09/2007 ALONG WITH RECEIPT. EXT.P13:- COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP NO.675 OF 2007 ON THE FILES OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT: EXT.R4(a):- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS. TRUE COPY RS/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 13973 OF 2004 L = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th June 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P3 and P7. Ext. P3 is an order passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 406 (3) of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994 confirming a provisional order. Ext. P3 says that the petitioner had made an unauthorised construction without a building permit and against the town planning scheme for the installation of a transformer. Against Ext. P3 petitioner had filed an appeal before the 1st respondent and that was rejected by Ext. P7 order. 2. Admittedly, there exists a structure in front of the building wherein the petitioner's commercial establishment is located. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said structure was constructed for installing a generator. It is also contended that meter cabin has been exempted from the provisions of the Municipalities Act and therefore the generator room having a size of 3 x 4 metres constructed by the petitioner is also exempted W.P.(C) No. 13973 OF 2004 -2- from the Municipalities Act. On this ground, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to justify the construction he has made without the permit and submits that Exts. P3 and P7 orders are illegal. 3. The Corporation and the party respondent on whose instance the impugned proceedings were initiated have filed separate affidavits. According to them, the construction made by the petitioner is against the town planning scheme and without permit and therefore the impugned proceedings are liable to be sustained. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner had not obtained any permit from the respondent Corporation and this factual position averred in the statement filed by the Corporation is not disputed by the petitioner. If so there cannot be anything illegal with Exts. P3 and P7. However, the construction made is sought to be justified comparing to a meter cabin, which is exempted from the provisions of the Municipalities Act. I am not in a position to accept this contention. A meter cabin and a structure in the nature of the one constructed by the petitioner and mentioned in Exts. P3 and P7, are totally incomparable and cannot be equated. Therefore as the W.P.(C) No. 13973 OF 2004 -3- structure constructed is admittedly without a permit Exts. P3 and P7 are unassailable and are liable to be upheld. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be given leave to move the Tribunal by filing an appeal. The petitioner may do so if the same is permissible in law. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-