IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22517 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- TOMY KURAIN, S/O.KURUVILA, RESIDING AT MANNAKULATHIL,ATHIRAMPUZHA PO KOTTAYAM 686 562. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.C.A.ANOOP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION (RA) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER,KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW FOR R2 SRI.SIBY MATHEW FOR R2 SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU FOR R2 SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) FOR R2 BY GP I V PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 22517 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is erecting a building. It is a multi apartment structure. On the basis of the changed commercial scenario, the petitioner states that he wanted to change the nature of the apartments, and wanted to convert them to be single room studio apartments. He thus wanted to make changes to the original plan. While the Municipality and Town Planner take the stand that such an alteration would amount to altering the very plan, the petitioner contends that the proposed changes would only amount to permissible changes within the total built up area or plinth of the existing structure. This court does not want to express anything at this stage on that plea. This is because the freedom given to the owner to make changes in internal partitions under the law as it now stands, may or may not apply to apartments in a complex and division of the complex into different apartments and changing the type of the apartments. Those issues are therefore left open. Wpc 22517/2009 2 2. As of now, the petitioner faces a notice. He has to place appropriate objections. Learned counsel for the Municipality states that what has been placed as Ext.P5 does not appear to be statement of objections; but only remarks. If the petitioner files objections to the notice, the Municipality will, in consultation with the Town Planner, decide on that issue, without delay. It is appropriate that petitioner is given an opportunity of hearing by the Municipality as also the Town Planner. It is so ordered. A final decision shall follow, within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the objections as aforesaid. Whatever construction activities petitioner wants to carry out would be carried out only upon orders of the Town Planner, except those in accordance with the approved plan. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/7/8