IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 30061 of 2003(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.P.NAVEENCHANDRA MALLAYA,AGED 57 YEARS SON OF PURUSHOTHAMA MALLAYA, RESIDING AT XII/590, MANTHRA ROAD, PANDIKUDI, KOCHI-682 002. BY ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (M) DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SENIOR TOWN PLANNER, ERNAKULAM. 3. CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARK AVENUE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 011. 4. V.J.THOMAS, VALAKUZHI, XII/272, JAWAHAR ROAD, KOCHI-682 002. 5. MARIAMMA THOMAS, VALAKUZHI, XII/272, JAWAHAR ROAD, KOCHI-682 002.(*) 5. MERCY, W/O.V.J.THOMAS, VALAKUZHI XII/272, JAWAHAR ROAD, KOCHI-682 002. (*) (NAME OF 5TH RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS ABOVE AS PER ORDER DT.1.12.2003 IN I.A. NO.14762/2003.) ADV. SRI.DEEPAK T.NEDUNGADAN FOR R4,5 SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN. FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DT.27.3.98 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO R3. P2: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.6.5.98 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO R3. P3: .DO. DT.8.4.99 .DO. TO R1. P4: .DO. DT.2.7.2002 .DO. TO R3. P5: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.20.9.2002 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P. NO.18794/2002 K. P6: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.15.5.2003 ISSUED BY R1 TO PETITIONER. P7: TRUE COPY G.O. DT.14.7.2003 ISSUED BY R1. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.30061 of 2003 .................................................................... Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P7 whereunder the Government has regularised construction of building by respondents 4 and 5 in violation of Building Rules. On going through Ext.P7 and after hearing both sides, I do not find any justification for this court to interfere with Ext.P7 because the construction was basically interfering with widening of the road only and it was specifically agreed that as and when road widening is required, respondents 4 and 5 will demolish the building and it is on this condition the construction is allowed to be retained. So far as petitioner is concerned, petitioner has not highlighted as to how petitioner is personally aggrieved in the construction made by respondents 4 and 5 in violation of Building Rules. No sketch is produced and petitioner's personal grievance as such does not stand proved. The W.P. is therefore, dismissed leaving respondents 1 to 3 to proceed for demolition of the building as and when road widening is required. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms