IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2011 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 30953 of 2011(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.P.JAGDISH, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.APPUTTY RESIDING AT KERALA SREE, JAIL ROAD, KASABA AMSOM, KARIAKUNNU DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH, SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. P.S.RAMALINGAM, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.P.R.SUBRAMANIAM, RESIDING AT 16/899, RAM NIVAS, ANNIE HALL ROAD, NAGARAM AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. PIN- 673 032. 2. CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE, PIN- 673 032. 3. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 032. 4. THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M. MOHAMMED SHAFI, R2 & R3 BY SRI. K.D. BABU, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.30953/2011-T: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P-1: A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.239/2007 DATED 15.10.2007 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT GIVING SPECIAL PERMISSION FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF RC BUILDINGS IN PLACE OF THE GUTTED STRUCTURES. EXT.P-2: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.1.2010 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT FOR CONSIDERING 1ST RESPONDENT'S ENTITLEMENT OF THE EXT.P1 BENEFITS FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF HIS BUILDING. EXT.P-3: A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 2.11.2011 OF THE PETITIONER UNDER RULE 16 OF THE KERALA MUNICIPAL BUILDING RULES BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR REVOCATION OF PERMIT GRANTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.30953 of 2011-T. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st November, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of a commercial building at Kozhikode. On 5.4.2007, there was a massive outbreak of fire at the business premises of the petitioner in Moidheenpally Road in SM Street, in which several buildings including that of the petitioner were gutted and completely destroyed. Thereupon, the second respondent introduced a scheme for the reconstruction of such buildings that were lost in the fire, in concurrence with the fourth respondent for the rehabilitation of the occupants thereof. Accordingly, special permission was granted to persons like the petitioner and on the basis of such permission, the buildings were reconstructed after granting exemption from the Municipal Building Rules, wherever required. 2. The complaint of the petitioner is that the first WP(C).No.30953/2011-T. 2 respondent taking advantage of the above situation had started construction of a building in violation of the Municipal Building Rules, though he was not entitled to any of the concessions that were granted to persons like the petitioner who had suffered loss due to the fire. Further, it is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that even in the case of constructions that were permitted by the authorities, the constructions had to be made occupying only the place that was occupied by the old building. The first respondent has constructed his building utilising the land that was not earlier occupied by his building also. Though the petitioner had submitted objections and complaints to the authorities regarding the illegal construction that had been undertaken by the first respondent, no action has been taken by respondents 2 to 4. One such representation submitted by him is Ext.P3. The petitioner therefore seeks the issue of appropriate directions for the consideration and disposal of Ext.P3. WP(C).No.30953/2011-T. 3 3. In view of the fact that Ext.P3 is pending consideration of the third respondent, it is sufficient that this writ petition is disposed of directing the said authority to consider and dispose of Ext.P3. 4. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the third respondent to consider the complaint of the petitioner set out in his representation, evidenced herein by Ext.P3, in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-