IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 19580 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.K.VISWAMBARAN, VISHWA VIHAR, OORAMPALLIL, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOLLAM, KOLLAM. 2. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, CORPORATION OF KOLLAM, KOLLAM. 3. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 4. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19580 of 2008 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.TP2-BRC-290-06-07 DATED 19.12.06 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.TP2/BRC/390/06-07 DATED 16.5.07 EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.TP2/BRC/290/06-07 DATED 28.12.07 EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM 45/08 IN APPEAL NO.45/08 DATED 25.1.08 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.79/08 IN APPEAL NO.45/08 DATED 25.1.08 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN APPEAL NO.45/08 EXT.P8- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN APPEAL NO.45/08 DATED 12.5.08 EXT.P9- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 DATED 23.6.08. EXT.P10- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.TP2/BRC/290/06-07 DATED 14.7.08 EXT.P11- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28.7.08 (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).19580/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 is a building permit issued to the petitioner for the construction of a multi storied building. That was modified by Ext.P4 order by reducing one floor which was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions by filing Appeal No.45/08. By Ext.P8 order dated 12.5.2008, the Tribunal set aside Ext.P4. Though the 1st respondent Corporation was directed to initiate fresh and proper proceedings in accordance with law if there are any reasons for doing so, Corporation did not take any follow up action. 2. Petitioner therefore filed Ext.P9 application for the issuance of an occupancy certificate in respect of the building, the construction of which was completed in the meanwhile. That was replied by the Corporation by Ext.P10. At that stage, this writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P8 order of the Tribunal to the extent liberty was given to the Corporation. Corporation replied to W.P.(C).19580/08 2 Ext.P9 by Ext.P10 stating that Ext.P9 application cannot be considered for the reason that the construction was completed by the petitioner in violation of Ext.P4 which is already set aside by the Tribunal and on account of the pendency of this writ petition. Petitioner now seeks to quash Ext.P10 also and to direct the Corporation to issue occupancy certificate in respect of the building. 3. Insofar as the challenge by the petitioner against Ext.P8 is concerned, almost two years have expired since the issuance of Ext.P8. Corporation has till date not taken any further action in the matter. Therefore, there is no reason why the Corporation shall not issue occupancy certificate insofar as the building in question is concerned. 4. In view of the above, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the Corporation shall issue occupancy certificate as sought for by the petitioner in Ext.P9, as expeditiously as possible at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. W.P.(C).19580/08 3 However, it is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the Government if they intend to take any action against Ext.P8 order. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs