IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 20634 of 2008(F) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. N.A.SHERIFFA, AGED 71 YEARS, W/O.A.M.KHADHAR PILLAI, ANJIKATH HOUSE, VMB ROAD, PATHADIPALAM, KOCHI-33. 2. A.K.NAZER, S/O.A.M.KHADHAR PILLAI, 24/201-B, ANJIKATH HOUSE, VMB ROAD, PATHADIPALAM, KOCHI-33. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O.CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR,KOCHI-33. 2. THE SECRETARY, KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY P.O.CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, KOCHI-33. 3. THE SENIOR TOWN PLANNER, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER FOR HEALTH, ERNAKULAM. 6. THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ERNAKULAM. 7. K.H.ABDUL MAJEED, S/O.HASSAN, ELLICKAL HOUSE, PATHADIPALAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR PO, ERNAKULAM. Kss ..2/- ..2..... WPC.NO.20634/2008 F 8. K.H.MOHAMMED ALI, S/O.HASSAN, ELLICKAL HOUSE, PATHADIPALAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR PO, ERNAKULAM. 9. K.H.ABDUL SALAM, S/O.HASSAN, ELLICKAL HOUSE, PATHADIPALAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR PO, ERNAKULAM. 10. K.H.ABDUL KAREEM, S/O.HASSAN, ELLICKAL HOUSE, PATHADIPALAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR PO., ERNAKULAM. 11. M/S.R.F.MOTORS, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PATHADIPPALAM, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR ADV. SRI. M.K.ABOOBACKER, SC,KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY FOR R1 & R2 SRI. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC FOR R6 SRI.JOSEPH A.VADAKKEL FOR R7-10 SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE FOR R7-10 SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL) SRI.V.J.JOHN FOR R7-10 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.20634/2008 F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H.2786/01 DTD. 16/03/2007 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE APPROVED PLAN ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY TO RESPONDENTS 7 TO 9. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REVISED APPROVED PLAN. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.M.A.759/2007 DTD. 15/02/2008 ISSUED TO RESPONDENTS 7 TO 10 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AP10-2992/08 DTD. 12/05/2007. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PW.4475/08 DTD. 07/07/2008. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 21/06/2008. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE LAWYER'S NOTICE DTD. 27/06/2008. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.20634/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners submit that, in a property which is adjacent to their residential premises belonging to the respondents 7 to 10, a structure has been completed and that in the said structure, the 11th respondent is proceedings to establish a workshop without obtaining a licence from the first respondent Municipality. 2. Respondents 7 to 10 and 11 submits that, a plot of land belonging to respondents 7 to 10 is being developed by the 11th respondent based on an agreement among themselves. It is stated that only after development work is completed, will they be in a position to make application to the first respondent Municipality for utilization of the building for the purpose for which it is intended. WP(c).No.20674/08 2 3. It is stated that, so far they have not completed the structure and only thereafter they will make an application. Municipality also confirms that no application for licence has been received by them. 4. If as stated by respondent No.11, they have not obtained any licence in respect of the premises in question, it is only natural that they cannot establish any workshop or other facility in the building in question. Now that the respondent No.11 submits that, they will make an application to the Municipality, on completing the developmental works, it will be the Municipality's duty to consider the application with notice to the petitioners who are the neighbouring respondents. Therefore, writ petition is disposed of directing that, without licence, the Municipality shall not permit respondents 7 to 10 or 11 to establish any workshop or other establishment and that as and when an application WP(c).No.20674/08 3 received from them or any one of them, the Municipality shall consider with same only with notice to the petitioners. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.20674/08 4