IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 11973 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. N.A. SHERIFFA, AGED 71 YEARS, W/O. A.M. KHADER PILLAI, 24/203, ANJIKATH HOUSE, VMB ROAD, PATHADIPALAM, KOCHI-33. 2. A.K. NAZER, S/O.A.M. KHADHAR PILLAI, 24/203, ANJIKATH HOUSE, VMB ROAD, PATHADIPALAM, KOCHI-33. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KALAMSSERY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O. CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, KOCHI -33. 2. THE SECRETARY, KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, P.O. CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, KOCHI -33. 3. THE SENIOR TOWN PLANNER, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER FOR HEALTH, ERNAKULAM. 6. THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ERNAKULAM. 7. K.H. ABDUL MAJEED, S/O. HASSAN, ELLICKAL HOUSE, PATHADIPALAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR.P.O, ERNAKULAM. WPC.11973/09 2 8. K.H. MOHAMMED ALI, S/O. HASSAN, ELLICKAL HOUSE, PATHADIPALAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR.P.O, ERNAKULAM. 9. K.H. ABDUL SALAM, S/O. HASSAN, ELLICKAL HOUSE, PATHADIPALAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR.P.O, ERNAKULAM. 10. K.H. ABDUL KAREEM, S/O. HASSAN, ELLICKAL HOUSE, PATHADIPALAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR.P.O, ERNAKULAM. 11. M/S. R.F. MOTORS, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PATHADIPALAM, COCHIN UNIVERSITY.P.O, ERNAKULAM. 12. M/S. UCO BANK M.G. ROAD BRANCH, RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM - 16, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. R1, R2 BY ADV.SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER, S.C. R6 BY ADV.SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, S.C. R7 TO R10 BY SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE SRI.C.I.ABRAHAM SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL) R11 BY SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SMT.ANILA PETER R12 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.K.JAGADEESH SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.11973/09 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H.2786/01 DATED 16.3.07 OF R2. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED PLAN ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEER OF R1 MUNICIPALITY TO RESPONDENTS 7 TO 9. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED PLAN. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE BUIDING PERMIT NO.M.A.759/07 DATED 15.2.2008 ISSUED TO RESPONDENTS 7 TO 10 BY R1. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AP10-2992/08 DATED 12.5.07. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PW.4475/08 DATED 7.7.08. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.8.08 I W.P(C).20634/08. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 6.11.08. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.11.08 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF R1. EXT.P10:TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENTS 7 TO 10 BEFORE R1 ON 16.6.08. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DATED 25.6.08. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN GIVEN ALONG WITH OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE. EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE SUBMITTED BY R11. EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE NOTE CONTAINING THE REPORT OF THE JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR OF THE KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P15: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY R11 BEFORE THE ASST. ENGINEER, KSEB SECTION OFFICE, THEVAKKAL. WPC.11973/09 EXT.P16: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.10.08 OF R2. EXT.P17: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.11.08 OF R3. EXT.P18: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 17.12.08 IN WP(C).37135/08 EXT.P19: TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 24.6.08 ISSUED BY THE UCO BANK. EXT.P20: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE UCO BANK. EXT.P21: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR PERMIT SUBMITTED BY R11 ON 4.3.09. EXT.P22: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.3.09 BEFORE R2. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R7-A: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER I APPEAL 565/08 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.R7-B: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED PLAN APPROVED BY R4. EXT.R7-C: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.15.12.08 IN COC.1458/08 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.R7-D: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.20.11.08 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, KSEB, THEVAKKAL TOGETER WITH ENCLOSURES. EXT.R7-E: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.21.12.08 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, KSEB, THEVEKKAL. EXT.R7-F: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.9.2.2009 OF THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.11973 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.The second petitioner is the son of the first petitioner. They have certain complaints about certain activities of the private respondents and allege that though initially, a permit was obtained to build a godown, that was later converted to be a marketing outlet and then, there is an attempt to get a licence for housing a service station. It is the contention of the petitioners that without obtaining prior permit, such conversion has actually been done. This litigation cannot be converted to be a suit for a perpetual prohibitory injunction, the place for which is the civil court in terms of the Code of Civil Procedure because it would be a suit of civil nature under Section 9 of that Code. All that could be ensured at this point of time is that if the petitioners, as neighbours, are entitled to object to Ext.P21, their objections have to be considered, affording them an opportunity of being heard. The petitioners have placed Ext.P21 objections. Therefore, while taking a final decision on Ext.P21, the competent official respondents will WPC.11973/09 Page numbers afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and take final decision, after adverting to and considering the objections raised in Ext.P22. Such decision shall state specific reasons since such a decision may be amenable to statutory remedies at the instance of any aggrieved parties before the competent authority. Moreover, persons against whom quasi judicial decisions are taken are entitled to be told the reasons for the decision and such right is part of the fundamental right to freedom of expression and has now been statutorily laid down also in the Right To Information Act. 2.I also record the submission by private respondents that an order has already been issued by the competent authority on Ext.P21, after consideration of Ext.P22. It is clarified that this issue is not being gone into because any question relevant to the legality of that order can only be subjected to challenge before the competent statutory authority. Hence, all such issues are left open. WPC.11973/09 Page numbers 3. For the aforesaid reasons, it is directed that a decision on Ext.P21 shall be rendered only after affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing and by stating reasons thereon. Since there is controversy between the parties as to whether an opportunity of hearing was given on Ext.P21, it is clarified that order, if any, already issued on Ext.P21 would also stand bound by the requirement of rule of hearing as stated in this judgment. All other issues are left open. If the parties are yet to be heard and decision rendered, let that be done within one month from now. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.8/6.