IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29457 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. VARGHESE, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 52 YEARS, KUNNATHU HOUSE, PINDIMANA VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. YACOB, S/O. ULAHANNAN, AGED 71 YEARS, CHENNILATH PUTHANPURAYIL, KODANADU KARA, KODANADU VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.SABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SECRETARY, KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY, KOTHAMANGALAM. 3. C.P. MATHEW, S/O. PETER, AGED 60 YEARS, CHELATTU HOUSE, ANGADI KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM.P.O. KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. SRI. V.M. KURIAN – SC GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.29457 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners claim to be co-owners of 22.397 cents of land in Kothamangalam Village along with the 3rd respondent. A building has been constructed therein having ground floor and 1st floor. The petitioners allege that the 3rd respondent obtained a permit for constructing the 2nd floor of the building without the junction of the petitioners as applicants. The petitioners' contention is that in view of Rule 21 read with Rule 15A(11) of the Kerala Building Rules, the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the permit without the application for permit having been signed by all the co-owners. 2. I am of opinion that this is a matter, which the petitioners have to take in an appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Municipalities Act. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were not served with a copy of the decision of the W.P.(c)No.29457/08 2 Municipality and therefore the petitioners had to obtain copy of the same by resort to proceedings under the Right to Information Act. The petitioners express an apprehension that since the limitation period prescribed for filing an appeal has already expired, the appellate authority may dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation. 4. It is settled law that the time taken for obtaining copy of the impugned order has to be excluded for computing the period of limitation. That being so, there is no basis for the apprehension raised by the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to file an appeal against the impugned order. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.29457/08 3