IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 14679 of 2008(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- RIYAS C.H, S/O.ABOOBAKER HAJI, RESIDING AT BEVINJE, POST THEKKIL FERRI, KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.P.K.MUHAMMED, MR.M.ABDUL RASHEED. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KASARAGODE MUNICIPALITY, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KASARAGODE. 2. THE TOWN PLANNER, DIST URBAN/RURAL PLANNING OFFICE, KASARAGODE. 3. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, STATE OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM, 4. STATE OF KREALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY FOR LOCAL SELF ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM. 5. T.H.SAIFUDEEN, S/O.LATE T.H.MUHAMMED KUNHI, FATHIMA MANZIL, AYYAMCODE, KALNAD,KASARAGODE. W.P.(C). NO.14679/2008-V: 6. SAKEER, S/O.VEDIRA ABOOBAKER, CHALA ROAD, POST VIDYA NAGAR, KASARAGODE. R1 BY ADV. MR.V.M.KURIAN, R3 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. V. MANU, R5 BY ADV. MR. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.14679/2008-V: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT AND THE APPROVED PLAN ISSUED TO THE FATHER OF THE R.5. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ADDRESSED BY THE R.2. TO THE R.3. NO. P45/207 DTD. 27/01/2007. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SHOPPING COMPLEX. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 19/03/2008 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.4. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE RECTIFIED PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R5.A: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RELINQUISHMENT OF LAND DTD. 23/06/05. EXT.R5.B: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NUMBERED AS BA 26/05-06 DTD. 10/10/2005. EXT.R5.C: COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER NUMBERED AS PW2/BA 26/05-06 DTD 28/12/2006. EXT.R5.D: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD 28/12/2006. EXT.R5.E: COPY OF THE ORDER NUMBERED AS 45/07 DTD. 27/01/2007. EXT.R5.F: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD 13/02/2007. EXT.R5.G: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 21/02/2007. EXT.R5.H: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 03/01/2008. EXT.R5.I: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 03/03/2008. EXT.R5.J: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE R.2. DTD. 09/01/2008. EXT.R5.K: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 02/01/09 ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPALITY NO. B.A. 26/05/06. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.14679 of 2008-V = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of September, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner is a neighbour of respondents 5 and 6. He alleges that those respondents are carrying on a construction in violation of the KMBR and other relevant provisions which govern buildings. It is not disputed that respondents 5 and 6 have a building permit. But, it needs to be noted that there were objections raised, at least, on two counts, even by the statutory authorities. It is stated that respondents 5 and 6 moved for regularising those defects by rectification and submission of request for regularisation. During the pendency of this writ petition, it is further alleged by the writ petitioner that a verandah portion has also been enclosed in a manner that the building will, in the sense of utility, occupy further area towards WPC14679/08 -: 2 :- the road margin. 2.With the aforesaid facts, it needs to be noted that the municipal authority has not concluded finally on the request of respondents 5 and 6 to regularise the construction and to issue completion certificate and number the building. Equally, the objection of the writ petitioner that there is further violation in the matter of enclosing the verandah is also to be considered. These are matters on which the municipal authority has to decide. Hence, this writ petition is ordered directing that the competent in the first respondent will hear the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6, consider the aforesaid issues and conclude by passing an order stating reasons since any person aggrieved by that decision could carry it for consideration of the Tribunal for LSGIs in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. Before parting, it also needs to be recorded that WPC14679/08 -: 3 :- the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 stated that certain directions were obtained in a different writ petition. It is stated that the said writ petition is without notice to the petitioner. Whatever that be, the municipality has to consider the objections of the petitioner and issue appropriate decision in accordance with law. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/220909