IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2011 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 3075 of 2011(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.SESHADRI, S/O.KRISHNA IYER, AGED 72 YEARS, VRINDAVAN, KAILAS NAGAR, KALPATHY, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, PALAKKAD MUNICIPAL OFFICE PALAKKAD. R1 BY SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE R1 BY ADVS. SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.C.A.ANOOP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ........................................... W.P.(C).NO.3075 OF 2011 ............................................. Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2011. JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed mainly with the prayer to quash Exts.P3 and P7 and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue occupancy certificate in respect of the building constructed by the petitioner. 2. Alleging that the petitioner has effected construction without leaving minimum side yard on one side, Ext.P3 was issued by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter the petitioner has submitted Ext.P6 representation with the prayer to issue occupancy certificate. According to the petitioner, 2nd respondent is competent to look into the said aspect in view of the provisions under Section Chapter 143 of the Kerala Municipal Building Rules. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondent. According to the petitioner, Ext.P7 was passed without considering Ext.P6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in Ext.P7 there is no reference at all about Ext.P6 W.P.(C).NO.3075 OF 2011 : 2 : representation. In view of the fact that Ext.P6 was not considered before passing Ext.P7, I am of the view that the matter requires consideration by the 2nd respondent in the light of the relevant enabling provision. To enable the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P6, Ext.P7 is set aside. Consequently, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P6 and pass orders in accordance with law expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner. Sd/= C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. /true copy/ P.S. to Judge. cl