IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34222 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VASANTHA RAMACHANDRAN, W/O.N.K.RAMACHANDRAN CHETTIYAR, AYSWARIA, THUDATHIL P.O., KARIAVATTOM, PULLANNIVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.ABDUL KHARIM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. MR.SADASIVAN NAIR, SREEKANDA VILASOM, THUNDATHIL P.O., KARIAVATTOM VIA PULLANNIVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 581. ADV. SRI.K.NIRMALAN FOR R3 SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR, SC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C)No.34222/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 8.11.2010. EXT.P1(a). TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT NO.171764 DATED 9.11.2010. / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.34222 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a resident of Trivandrum Corporation. The third respondent is her neighbour. The third respondent has commenced the construction of a commercial building. On the allegation that the said building is being constructed without providing the requisite set back from the western boundary of the petitioner's lands, she has filed Ext.P1 complaint before the Secretary of Trivandrum Corporation. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that though nearly two weeks have passed after Ext.P1 complaint was submitted, till date the Secretary has not taken steps to prevent the third respondent from proceeding with and completing the construction. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks a direction to the Secretary of Trivandrum Corporation to enquire into Ext.P1 complaint and take an appropriate decision thereon within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 2. The respondents have been served. Sri.K.Nirmalan, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, submits W.P(C).No.34222 of 2010 -:2:- that the third respondent is constructing the building in accordance with the approved plan and that the allegations in Ext.P1 are unfounded. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar by learned counsel on either side. The allegation in Ext.P1 complaint is that the building being put up by the third respondent does not have the requisite set back from the western boundary of the petitioner's land. Under the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act, it is the duty of the second respondent to consider the said complaint and take an appropriate decision in the matter. I am therefore, of the opinion that the second respondent should enquire into Ext.P1 complaint and take an appropriate decision thereon expeditiously. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to inspect the site where the third respondent is constructing the building with notice to the petitioner and the third respondent along with the Town Planner and take an appropriate decision as to whether the building being put up by the third respondent is in accordance with the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and the approved plan. A final decision W.P(C).No.34222 of 2010 -:3:- on Ext.P1 complaint shall be taken expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the second respondent. It is clarified that the construction of the building being put up by the third respondent will be subject to the decision to be taken by the second respondent. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.34222 of 2010 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 22nd November, 2010