IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2011 / 7TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23410 of 2011(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- VALSAMMA DEVASIA, W/O.LATE DEVASIA JOSEPH, KALATHIL HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY. P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. CHANGANACHERRY MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-686 101. 2. SECRETARY, CHANGANACHERRY MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY-686 101. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 23410 of 2011(A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/07/2011. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16/08/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 23410 OF 2011 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011 JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Changanacherry Municipality. 2. This writ petition is filed for the following reliefs:- “i) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the construction of the half wall (Ara Mathil) by the petitioner in her house bearing building No.158 in Ward No.II of the Changanacherry Municipality. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 representation within a time frame.” 3. The petitioner submits that she carried out the construction of a half wall (Ara Mathil) in her residential building, that due an inadvertent omission, she could not obtain necessary sanction from the lst respondent-Municipality for carrying out the said construction and that the petitioner was under a mistaken -2- W.P.(C).No.23410/2011 notion that for the purpose of constructing an 'ara mathil' in her house, there is no necessity of obtaining permission from the Municipality. The 2nd respondent issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to appear before him and show cause why the construction carried out by her shall not be directed to be demolished. Pursuant to the said notice. the petitioner appeared for the 2nd respondent, narrated the true facts and requested the 2nd respondent to regularise the construction. Thereafter an order was passed by the 2nd respondent directing the petitioner to demolish the construction carried out by her without obtaining the permit. In the circumstances, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 representation requesting the 2nd respondent to regularise the construction. 4. When the matter was taken up for consideration today, the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality submits that Ext.P2 is only a representation and that it is for the petitioner to submit an application for regularisation as per Rule 144 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules with the requisite fee. -3- W.P.(C).No.23410/2011 5. In the facts and circumstances stated above, a direction is issued to the lst respondent-Municipality to consider and pass appropriate on the application for regularisation provided the petitioner submits an application in the prescribed form within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of such application in the prescribed form, the lst respondent-Municipality shall consider and pass appropriate orders thereon within one month thereafter. All further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 order shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the application by the Municipality. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.