IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2008 / 23RD SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 21651 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ DEEPAK L. ASWANI, DEVI COMPLEX, DORAISWAMY IYER ROAD, COCHIN-35. BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNAMTHANAM (SR.) SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, COCHIN-682031. 2. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYTTILA SECTION, VYTTILA, COCHIN-19. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PALLIMUKKU, COCHIN-16. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN. FOR R1 & 2 SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R3 SC FOR KWA SRI. M. DINESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.21651/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The prayer in this writ petition is against respondents 3 and 4 to provide service connections to the Villas, the construction of which was completed by the petitioner. There is a further prayer for a direction against respondents 1 and 2 not to interfere with the petitioner or their successors in interest in the use and occupation of the Villas. 2. It would appear that 23 Villas were constructed by the petitioner on the strength of Exts.P7 and P8 building permits issued by the respondent Corporation. In order to get service connection from respondents 3 and 4, petitioner needs occupancy certificates from the Corporation of Cochin. Since, occupancy certificate was not issued, WP(c).No.21651/2008 2 respondents 3 and 4 were not giving service connection and that lead the petitioner to file this writ petition. Therefore, what arise for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Corporation should issue an occupancy certificate as prayed for by the petitioner in Ext.P13. 3. In the statement filed by the Corporation, it has been stated that, it issued Ext.P9 stop memo dated 7.2.2007 and that ignoring the same, the petitioner continued the construction and completed the same only on 8.5.2008. Yet another reason stated by the Corporation is that the Chief Town Planner has taken objection against the lay out approval that was granted by the Corporation. 4. On facts it is seen that the date of completion viz 8.5.2008 now relied on by the Corporation is the date on which the petitioner submitted Ext.P13 and similar other formal applications for occupancy certificates. However, no materials, whatsoever has been placed on record to indicate that this was the date on which the petitioner had WP(c).No.21651/2008 3 completed the construction. According to the petitioner the building in question were completed much prior to Ext.P9. Therefore, I am not in a position to accept the reason now projected by the Corporation and conclude that despite the stop memo the petitioner proceeded the construction. 5. In so far as the lay out approval is concerned, the fact remains that an application was made by the petitioner and that the lay out was approved by the Corporation as per Ext.P3 dated 30.10.1995. It may be true that the Chief Town Planner may have taken objection to what the Corporation has done. But however so long as the petitioner has made a proper application and the Corporation has considered the same and granted its approval on the basis of which work also has been completed, the Corporation cannot now be permitted to go back from such approval. 6. In my view, the petitioner is entitled to assert its entitlement based on the layout approval granted by the Corporation. WP(c).No.21651/2008 4 7. Yet another reason stated by the Corporation is that the validity of the permit has expired on 28.3.2008 and that the conclusion was completed much later. Here again the Corporation is banking on the date of Ext.P13, which can be of no significance. Therefore all the three reasons stated by the Corporation for refusal of occupancy certificate applied for by the petitioner cannot be accepted. 8. According to the writ petition is disposed of directing the corporation to issue occupancy certificate as applied for by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. The Electricity Board and Kerala Water Authority are refusing to provide service connection for the only reason that the occupancy certificate has not been produced by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid direction it is further directed that once occupancy certificate is obtained and WP(c).No.21651/2008 5 produced before respondents 3 and 4, they shall take necessary action on the request made by the petitioner. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE vi