IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 5313 of 2008(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ VALSA T.V., THELAKKATTU HOUSE, PUTHENCRUZ P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM. 3. VADAVUCODE PUTHENCRUZ GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, PUTHENCRUZ P.O., ERNAKULAM. 4. PUTHENCRUZ GOVERNMENT SERVANTS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY E.NO.153, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN SRI.DINESH.R.SHENOI SHRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 5313 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 15th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T Even though Shri.Ajithkrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner has addressed very strenuously on the grounds which have been raised in this writ petition, I am not inclined to uphold the challenge against Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal. I have perused Ext.P6. It cannot be said that it is vitiated to the extent of justifying any interference within the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and much less under Article 227, the supervisory jurisdiction. The Tribunal has found that at the time when the Government promulgated circular No.24136/RAI/07/LSGD dated 20/06/2007 clarifying the notification, by which the Kerala Municipality Building Rules were extended to Panchayats all over Kerala, the construction had proceeded beyond the ground level. The above findings, according to me, cannot be said to be vitiated. If that be so, there is no necessity for the 4th respondent to take out a building permit under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. 2. Petitioner has a grievance that the ongoing construction did not leave even 50 cms. of gap between her residential building and therefore if constructions are allowed to be completed, life will WP(C) No. 5313/2008 -2- become miserable for the petitioner in her house. Admittedly, that issue is before the Civil Court. Under these circumstances, I am not inclined to grant relief of preventing the construction. I uphold Ext.P6 and permit the 4 th respondent to complete the construction subject to the decision to be taken by the Civil Court in the ongoing civil litigation. The 4 th respondent is reminded that if the decision of the civil court comes to be against the 4 th respondent, they will become liable to demolish the constructions. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) jg