IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2010 / 29TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 9871 of 2010(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.PRAFULLACHANDRAN NAIR, EX.MUNICIPAL CHAIRMAN, NEDUMANGAD MUNICIPALITY, RESIDING AT DRISYA, KULAVIKONAM, NEDUMANGAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN SRI.RAMAKRISHNAN SOMANADHAN NAIR SMT.V.RENJU SRI.P.ANIYAN SMT.M.A.RAMITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. NEDUMANGAD MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, NEDUMANGAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. ADBUL RASHEED, CITADEL, GOLF LINKS ROAD, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN FOR R2 SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.RAMESH FOR R1 & 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C)No.9871/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.3011/2007/LSGD DT. 5.11.2007 EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 8.12.2009 IN W.P(C)NO.18134/09 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 15.3.2010 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY REGD. WITH A/D. / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.9871 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who claims to be the former Municipal Chairman of Nedumangad Municipality, has filed this writ petition mainly seeking a direction to the Nedumangad Municipality and the Chief Town Planner, Trivandrum, to take a decision on Ext.P3 representation. He has also prayed for an order restraining the 4th respondent from proceeding with the construction of the building referred to in Ext.P3 without obtaining the permission of respondents 2 and 3. 2. The pleadings and the materials on record disclose that by Ext.P2 judgment delivered on 8.12.2009 in W.P(C)No.18134 of 2009, in which the petitioner herein was the 4th respondent, a learned single Judge of this Court had held that if the 4th respondent carries out the rectifications suggested by the Government in Ext.P1 order dated 5.11.2007 the Chief Town Planner shall, after inspection, certify whether the government order has been complied with and that in the event of the Chief W.P(C).No.9871 of 2010 -:2:- Town Planner certifying that the government order has been complied with, the Nedumangad Municipality shall take necessary steps to regularise the construction. In Ext.P3 representation the petitioner has also sought the intervention of respondents 2 and 3 to stop the construction of the building. 3. Pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court on 8.9.2010 the Regional Town Planner, Trivandrum has submitted a report dated 6.10.2010. Paragraphs 2 and 3 thereof read as follows:- “2. It is submitted that in compliance with the said order the Chief Town Planner deputed the Regional Town Planner, Thiruvananthapuram to conduct inspection and submit report within the time stipulated by this Honourable Court. On 30.9.2010 the Chief Town Planner, Senior Town Planner (Vigilance) and the Regional Town Planner, Thiruvananthapuram jointly inspected the site and the building and observed that the rectification works are going on and not completely carried out so far and it is also observed that there are certain minor differences in plot measurements and open spaces when compared with the approved plan. 3. It may be noted that as per the Kerala Municipal Building Rules, 1999 the verifications W.P(C).No.9871 of 2010 -:3:- of the site measurements are entrusted with the municipal authorities. Since the 4th respondent has not carried out the rectifications required to be done by Exhibit P1 Government Order, directions have been given to complete the rectification works in accordance with the Government Order and submit a rectified plan through the municipal authorities. On receipt of the same the Chief Town Planner can again inspect the site and after being satisfied that the rectifications have been done, a certificate to that regard would be issued.” It is evident from the report submitted by the Regional Town Planner that the rectification works suggested by the Government have not yet been completed and that the 4th respondent has been directed to complete the rectification works in a time bound manner and submit a rectified plan through the municipal authorities. It is also stated that on receipt of the same the Chief Town Planner will again inspect the site and if he is satisfied that the rectifications have been done, a certificate in that regard would be issued. 4. The petitioner was a party to Ext.P2 judgment. In such circumstances I am of the opinion that he should await the W.P(C).No.9871 of 2010 -:4:- rectification works being carried out by the 4th respondent before raising any further dispute as regards the building being put up by the 4th respondent. The request made by the petitioner in Ext.P3 is, in my opinion, premature. After the rectification works are carried out by the 4th respondent and the Chief Town Planner submits a report and if that report discloses any irregularities the petitioner can certainly bring the same to the notice of the local authority and the local authority shall in that event consider such irregularities also while taking steps to regularise the construction. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.9871 of 2010 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 21st October, 2010