IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 37135 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. N.A.SHERIFFA, AGED 71 YEARS, W/O. A.M. KHADHAR PILLAI, 24/203, ANJIKATH HOUSE, VMB ROAD, PATHADIPALAM, KOCHI -33. 2. A.K. NOUSHAD, S/O.A.M. KHADHAR PILLAI, 24/203, ANJIKATH HOUSE, VMB ROAD, PATHADIPALAM, KOCHI -33. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O. CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, KOCHI-33. 2. THE SECRETARY, KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, P.O. CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, KOCHI-33. 3. THE SENIOR TOWN PLANNCER, ERNAKULAM DIST, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, ERNAKULAM. 6. THE CHIEF ENVORONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ERNAKULAM. 7. K.H.ABDUL MAJEED, S/O.HASSAN, ELLICKAL HOUSE, PATHADIPALAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., ERNAKULAM. 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, PATHADIPPALAM, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., ERNAKULAM. GOVT. PLEADER SMR. K.R. DEEPA. ADV. SRI. M.K. CHANDRA MOHAN DAS. ADV. SRI. M.K. ABOOBACKER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 37135 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 17th December, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are objecting to the 11th respondent conducting a workshop in a building constructed by respondents 7 and 10 on the strength of a building permit obtained for the purpose of establishing a margin free shop. The petitioners earlier approached this Court and by Ext. P7 judgment, this Court directed the Municipality as follows: “Therefore, writ petition is disposed of directing that, without licence, the Municipality shall not permit respondents 7 to 10 or 11 to establish any workshop or other establishment and that as and when an application received from them or any one of them, the Municipality shall consider with the same only with notice to the petitioners.” Although the petitioners have been heard pursuant to Ext. P7, after hearing, the matter was referred to the senior Town Planner as per Ext. P20 for some clarification. Pursuant thereto, Ext. P21 clarification was given by the senior Town Planner. The matter is now pending with the Chief Town Planner. The petitioners have filed Ext. P22 objections before the Chief Town Planner. In the above circumstances, the petitioners seek the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondents 1 and 2 not to issue license as contemplated u/s 447 of the Kerala Municipality Act to respondents 7 to 11 to conduct an automobile workshop and service station in the building which is constructed without obtaining a permission u/s 448 of the Kerala Municipality Act for establishing and constructing the workshop. ii) To direct that the 1st respondent Municipality is not empowered under the Kerala Municipality Act to issue a license as contemplated u/s 447 of the Kerala Municipality Act to conduct any factory, workshop or work place in the building which is constructed without obtaining a permission u/s 448 of the Kerala W.P.C. No. 37135/2008 -: 2 :- Municipality Act for establishing and constructing such factory, workshop or work place. iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondents 1 and 2 not to issue license or permission to respondents 7 to 11 to establish and conduct an automobile workshop and service station in the building which is constructed after obtaining Ext. P3 plan and Ext. P4 building permit for establishing a margin free shop; iv) Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction, directing respondents 1 and 2 not to permit change of purpose of occupancy to respondents 7 to 10 for the building constructed by them as per Ext. P3 plan and Ext. P4 building permit in violation of the approved zoning regulation of the 1st respondent Municipality. v) Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction, directing the 4th respondent to consider the objections raised by the petitioners as per Ext. P22 and P25 before taking any decision on the reference made by the 2nd respondent on Ext. P16 application for license submitted by the 11th respondent, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.” 2. I am of opinion that in so far as there is no statutory provision which obliges the Town Planner to hear the petitioners, the petitioners cannot, as of right, claim that the Town Planner should hear them before he gives the clarification. The Town Planner is the expert on the subject and therefore he must be expected to know every technical aspect of the same. What Ext. P7 has directed is only a hearing to the petitioners by the Municipality. Since, after hearing, the matter has been referred to the Town Planner, it is only appropriate that after all clarifications are received, the Municipality, before passing orders on the application for licence, hear the petitioner as well as respondents 7 to 11. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction that W.P.C. No. 37135/2008 -: 3 :- before passing orders on the application for licence, both the petitioners as well as respondents 5 to 11 shall also be heard. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/