IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2011 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1793 of 2011 --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.22590/2007 Dated 08/11/2011 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3: ------------------------------------------ 1. MARADU MUNICIPALITY, MARADU.P.O, KOCHI - 682 304, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, MARADU MUNICIPALITY, MARADU.P.O, KOCHI - 682 304. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR SRI.M.R.DHANIL SMT.J.HRUDYA RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: --------------------------------- 1. ALFA VENTURES PVT. LTD., ALFA TOWERS, I.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR J. PAUL RAJ. 2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (RB) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KERALA STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN, OFFICE ADDRESS - THE DIRECTOR, STED, SASTHA BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004. R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS R2 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K. MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA.No. 1793 of 2011 APPENDIX APPELLANTS' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A1 : TRUE OCPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO.1428 OF 2011 DATED 10.10.2011 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ANNEXURE A2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE MUNICIPALITY DATED 19.10.2011. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1793 OF 2011 and I.A. No.890 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. After dictating the order in the open Court on 31.11.2011, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant brought to our notice certain clarifications to be made in the order. Hence the matter is listed today. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents. 2. The writ petition, from which this appeal comes from, was filed for the following reliefs: “a) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P8 letter issued by the 1st respondent and Ext.P9 notice issued by the 3rd respondent; b) direct the 3rd respondent to comply with Ext.P10 request before any action is taken pursuant to Ext.P9 notice; c) grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.” As we note from the above reliefs sought by the respondent/writ petitioner, there was no prayer as such for W.A. No. 1793 of 2011 -:2:- allotment of either permanent numbers or provisional numbers to the apartment to be put up by the respondent Company. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition, a direction was sought for allotment of provisional numbers by the writ petitioner which came to be allowed. However, the local authority approached the Division Bench challenging the interim order of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench, dismissing the appeal, issued directions to issue provisional numbers to the apartments of the respondent Company. Subsequently, we note that the orders at Annexure A2 came to be passed by the appellant herein. Before the provisional numbers could be intimated to the respondent Company, another Interlocutory Application came to be filed challenging Annexure A2, wherein the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order staying the orders at Annexure A2 and further directed allotment of permanent numbers to the apartments of the respondent Company. Aggrieved by this order, the present appeal is filed. 4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, several terms and conditions are to be looked into before provisional number is alloted to the apartments, therefore W.A. No. 1793 of 2011 -:3:- considering all the materials, orders at Annexure A2 came to be passed by the appellant Municipality. According to the respondent Company, once a direction to allot provisional numbers was issued, imposing any terms and conditions would not arise, therefore they are entitled for allotment of provisional numbers without any restrictions. 5. It is neither the claim of the respondent Company nor anyone prayed for issuance of permanent numbers. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, the learned Single Judge was not justified in directing the appellant authority to give permanent numbers to the apartments of the respondent Company. 6. Now, the controversy is whether the appellants can impose any conditions while issuing provisional numbers to the apartments in question. On perusal of the earlier judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. No.1428 of 2011, we note that, the first paragraph refers to the allegation of unauthorised construction or violation of the Building Rules. In spite of such reference, no finding as such was given, as the writ petition was pending before the learned Single Judge. If issuance of provisional allotment also W.A. No. 1793 of 2011 -:4:- needs consideration of any rules or regulations which govern the provisional numbering of the apartments, one has to understand the order of the learned Single Judge on the earlier occasion for the allotment of the provisional numbers. It would mean the numbering should be in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the issuance of provisional numbers. Therefore, we are of the opinion, the learned Single Judge was not justified in granting stay of Annexure A2, wherein certain explanation was sought from the respondent Company by the appellant authority. Hence the impugned order is set aside. With the above observations, we dispose of the Writ Appeal. Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb