IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 12590 of 2009(P) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- N.THANKAMONY, SADAN SARA, MC 31/481, PUNNATHALA SOUTH, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN, MR.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR, MR.M.R.JAYAPRASAD, MR.MATHEW SUNNY. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOLLAM, KOLLAM. 3. THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, CORPORATION OF KOLLAM, CORPORATION OFFICE, SAKTHIKULANGARA ZONE, KOLLAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. V. MANU R2 & R3 BY ADV. MR.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS,SC,KOLLAM CORPN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.12590/2009 P APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE BUILDING PLAN APPROVED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMISSION GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 5/09/2008. P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 24/11/2008. P4: COPY OF THE MEMO GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 26/03/2009. P5: COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM DTD. 20/04/2009. P6: COPY LETTER GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 11/05/2009. P7: THE TAX RECEIPT SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF THE BUILDING TAX DTD. 6/02/1980. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 12590 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF JULY, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner was issued Ext.P1 approved plan for renovation of an existing building and extension thereto. There is an existing building with municipal corporation No.31/481. Looking into the site plan available in Ext.P1, the petitioner has been granted permit to remove the tiled roof of that portion and instead, put up RCC roof. The conditions imposed for that exercise is that the height of the roof should not be increased and the plinth area covered by such RCC roof shall also not be increased from that of the existing building. The endorsement in Ext.P1 of which the petitioner is aggrieved, does not apply to the provision for roof that has to be made for the proposed extensions, on the two sides of the existing building. Therefore it is clarified that the endorsement in Ext.P1 that while replacing the tiled roof with RCC, the height or area shall not be increased, confines only to the portion shown as existing building in Ext.P1, it is ordered that petitioner will be heard by the second Wpc 12590/2009 2 respondent in the light of what is stated above and a decision taken on her grievance, if necessary, after conducting a local inspection to ascertain further as to whether the construction is in violation of Ext.P1 plan. However, in view of the monsoon, it is appropriate that the second respondent carries out this exercise within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner will be notified of any violation so that it could be rectified without delay. Writ petition ordered accordingly, leaving open all other contentions. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/28/7