IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1673 of 2009(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.P.MATHEW, S/O.PETER RESIDING AT CHELATTU HOUSE,ANGADY KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM SRI.N.RAJESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY REP. BY ITS SECRETARY ,KOTHAMANGALAM. 3. TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MEDICAL COLLEGE PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. VARGHESE, AGED 52, S/O.JOSEPH KUNNATHU HOUSE, PINDIMANA VILLAGE KOTHAMANGLAM TALUK. 5. YACOB, AGED 71, S/O.ULAHANNAN RESIDING AT CHENNILATHU, PUTHENPURAYIL KODANADU KARA, KODANADU VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.1673 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is one of the co-owners of a property, for construction of a building in which all co-owners together filed an application for building permit. That building permit was granted. Subsequently, it appears that the co-owners fell apart. The petitioner claims that the other co-owners executed an agreement by which the petitioner was permitted to continue construction in the event of certain circumstances contemplated in the agreement. When the period of the permit, the petitioner, by himself sought renewal of the permit which was sanctioned. Thereafter, two of the co-owners, viz. respondents 4 and 5 herein, filed appeal before the 3rd respondent- Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, who set aside the permit on the ground that the application for renewal of permit is not in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act in so far as the application was not signed by all the co-owners. The Tribunal relied on Rule 15A(11) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules,1999, to hold against the petitioner. Now relying on the very same rule, the petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order passed by the Tribunal in the said appeal. 2. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner would be a w.p.c.1673/09 2 person on whom the site devolved by virtue of Ext.P2 agreement or at least he would be a legally authorised representative in so far as by Ext.P2 agreement, respondents 4 and 5 also agreed on certain conditions that the petitioner can continue the construction on his own without junction of the other co-owners. 3. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner. 4. Rule 15A(11) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, reads thus: “15A. Extension and renewal of periods of permits.- (1) ... xxx xxx xxx xxx (11) The application for extension or renewal of a development permit or a building permit shall be signed and submitted by the original owner of the permit or his legal heir to whom the site devolves or legally authorised representative and in case the plot concerned has been transferred by the original owner, the transferee or his legally authorised representative:” 5. As far as the first contention is concerned, the petitioner is not a legal heir of his co-owners and therefore, the petitioner cannot be termed as a legal heir to whom site devolved. The next question is as to whether he can be considered as a legally authorised representative. The petitioner claims that respondents 4 and 5 have authorised the petitioner to seek extension of the building permit in so far as they themselves had agreed that the petitioner can continue construction on his own on certain conditions. I am not inclined to countenance that contention also in so far as the very same persons w.p.c.1673/09 3 who the petitioner claims to have authorised him have challenged the permit. Even otherwise the question as to whether the conditions contemplated in Ext.P2 agreement are satisfied itself is a question of fact, which the petitioner has to get resolved through a suit. As such, I am not satisfied that the conditions in Rule 15A(11) would come to the assistance of the petitioner in getting the validity of the permit extended. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the challenge against Ext.P7 order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge