IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14490 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JUSTIN SYLAS, S/O.A.JOHN JUSTIN RAJAMANI, VASANTHA VILAS, 9 ROOMS LINE, NEAR R.C.CHURCH, MUNNAR, DISTRICT IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, MUNNAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MUNNAR, K.D.H.VILLAGE, DISTRICT IDUKKI. 2. THE TOWN PLANNER, IDUKKI DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, PAINAVU, IDUKKI. 3. SASI, S/O.LATE PALRAJ, BUILDING NO.M.G.P.IX/1336(OLD), MUNNAR SETTLEMENT COLONY, MUNNAR. ADV. SMT.ASHIFA YOUSEFF FOR R1 SMT.MOLLY JACOB FOR R1 R2 BY GP MATHEW VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 14490 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF JUNE, 2009 JUDGMENT Adv.Aysha Youseff appears for first and second respondents. Notice to third respondent dispensed with, preserving his right to move for review of this judgment, if aggrieved. 2. The petitioner is a neighbour of the third respondent, who allegedly put up a building without due permit and license under the Kerala Muncipality Building Rules, 1999 hereinafter referred to KMBR, which came into force on 1.10.1999. The local authority issued a stop memo and proceedings on the basis of that action, is apparently in a standstill, following certain earlier directions by this court in a writ petition filed by the third respondent. This court had directed that the request of the third respondent for regularisation of the construction be considered by the local authority. After hearing the parties, by the impugned order in this writ petition, the Secretary of the local authority has directed the third respondent to place appropriate application in WP(C) 14490/2009 2 the statutory form accompanied by relevant documents as are stated in Ext.P11 to demonstrate that the building in question is not in violation of the KMBR. Therefore, I am clear in my mind that the local authority has not concluded on the issue as to whether the building has been erected in violation of the provisions of KMBR. That issue has been left open. As a neighbour, the petitioner may have a right to object to the grant of a permit. In a situation where a construction is allegedly carried out even without a building permit, such right of the petitioner would appear to be available, even to object to an application for regularisation of such construction. The petitioner has also a case that by virtue of the provisions of the Kerala Building(Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction and Land Development) Rules 1999, hereinafter called the Regularisation Rules, a building put up on or before 15.10.1999 could be regularised only under those rules. I do not want to express finally on this, though I may indicate that the entitlement for an order for regularisation under Rule 143 of the KMBR cannot be mixed up with opportunity to make an application for regularisation of an unauthorised construction in terms of the WP(C) 14490/2009 3 regularisation rules. Be that as it may, the petitioner, the neighbour insists on the complaint that the building erected by the third respondent is in violation of the KMBR and has been put up in a manner infringing the rights of the neighbour and also even by encroaching into or abutting the property of the petitioner. But a reading of Ext.P11 would show that the Secretary of the local authority has not concluded on any of those matters, since the consideration of such issues would arise only on a proper application with the necessary materials. Therefore, the prime requirement to hear the petitioner and the third respondent in relation to any further application and materials that the third respondent may place following Ext.P11, continues. Not only that, on further consideration of an application for regularisation, a final decision has to be rendered either way, stating reasons because any among the persons aggrieved by such decision, would be entitled to file a statutory appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in terms of Rule 160(2)(v) of KMBR in relation to a decision on regularisation. Needless to say, the reasons are to be stated clearly and categorically to support the decision since that is one WP(C) 14490/2009 4 of the fundamental foundations of the administrative decision making process. Not only that, even in terms of the Right to Information Act, a citizen is entitled to know the reasons for a decision that is being rendered touching his rights. This right is now recognized even as a statutory right under the RTA Act. For the aforesaid reasons, leaving open all issues and contentions between the parties, the Secretary of the Local Authority, viz, the first respondent is directed to consider any further application of the third respondent on the basis of Ext.P11 only after giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the petitioner also after making available to the petitioner such information as may be sought for by him to aid appropriate contest in the matter in issue. Writ petition ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/2/6