IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 28711 of 2006(R) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- SADANANDAN, CHITHASSERIL, KAREELAKULANGARA P.O., KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SMT.KAVITHA GANGADHARAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY, KAYAMKULAM. 2. SECRETARY, KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY, KAYAMKULAM. 3. S.KRISHNAPILLAI, MANAGING PARTNER, ABHAYA CONSTRUCTION, RESIDING AT 'USHA', T.C.4/1683, BELHAVAN GARDENS, KAVADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, FROM EDASSERIL VEEDU, KEERIKKAD. 4. A.S.VENUGOPAL, PULIYARA OTTATHENGIL, CHIRAKADAVAM, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL, SC - R1 SRI.V.G.ARUN - R3 & R4 SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR - R3 & R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 28711 of 2006 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: JUNE 20, 2008 JUDGMENT The controversy in this writ petition relates to the the 4th respondent's occupation of a portion of a commercial complex, the plan of which is Ext.P13. 2. The 3rd respondent is the builder of the said commercial complex. While the petitioner, who owns undivided share over a portion of the building, contends that the portion occupied by the 4th respondent on licence from the 3rd respondent is indicated as common area in the approved plan, respondents 3 and 4 are disputing this statement. Therefore the issue boils down to the question as to whether in permitting occupation of the 4th respondent, whether the 3rd respondent has violated the provisions of the approved plan and the building permit. This case of the petitioner is hotly contested by the respondents. 3. From the pleadings it is noticed that the petitioner has raised this issue before the Municipality as per Ext.P7 complaint filed by him. Therefore for resolving this controversy, it is essential for the Municipality to examine the plan, building WP(C) 28711/06 2 permit, conduct an inspection of the site and decide the issue with notice to the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4. In order to give a quietus to the factual dispute, such a decision is essential. I direct the Secretary of the 1st respondent Municipality to decide this issue untrammelled by the stand that the Municipality has taken before this court, with notice to both sides, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within four weeks from today. In the meanwhile, the interim order dated 1.11.2006 will continue for a period of four weeks. 4. It is pointed out that the portion occupied by the 4 th respondent has already been assigned a building number. I clarify that depending on the outcome of the enquiry to be held by the Secretary, it will be open to him to pass appropriate orders in this regard also. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-