IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 29609 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SANGAMESWARAN KRISHNAN, S/O.APPU IYER, AGED 65 YEARS, M/S. PRIYAM INVESTMENTS, 56/9 HMT LAYOUT, I BLOCK, VIDYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE-97. 2. VASANTHA KRISHNAN, W/O.SANGAMESWARAN K RISHNAN, AGED 62 YEARS, M/S. PRIYAM INVESTMENTS, 56/9 HMT LAYOUT, I BLOCK, VIDYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE-97. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, GURUVAYOOR MUNICIPALITY, GURUVAYOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 101. 2. THE GURUVAYOOR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GURUVAYOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 101. ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMMED FOR R 1 & 2 SRI.THOUFEEK AHAMED FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.29609/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE BUILDNG PERMIT BEARING NO.B.A.415/05-06 DATED 17/04/2007 ISSUED BY R1. P2 : COPY OF NOTICE BEARING NO.415/06 DATED 13/11/09 BY R1. P3 : COPY OF SITE PLAN WITHIN THE FRONT ELEVATION OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING. P4 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/08/2009 IN WP(C) NO.23818/2009 BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 29609 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners jointly own a parcel of land within the local limits of Guruvayoor Municipality. They applied for a building permit to put up a residential apartment complex in that land. Ext.P1 building permit was issued to the petitioners by the first respondent after the plan submitted by them was approved. The petitioners thereafter commenced and completed the construction. After the construction was over, they submitted a completion certificate and requested for numbering the building and to issue an occupancy certificate. That application was rejected on the ground that the road which provides access to the building has a width of only 12.14 metres, that there is a proposal to widen it to 18.25 metres and that the building will not have the necessary set back after providing space for widening the road. Ext.P2 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioners contend that as the construction is not in deviation from the approved plan and as the Municipality had approved the plan wherein the width of the road shown was only as 12.14 metres, the Municipality cannot be heard to contend that the WPC No.29609/2010 2 construction is illegal. They also rely on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.23818 of 2009 wherein in identical circumstances in respect of a building situated adjacent to the building put up by the petitioners it was held that if the building permit has been issued and the plan approved, the Municipality cannot decline to number the building or issue occupancy certificate on the ground that the set back will be inadequate if the road is widened. 3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit reiterating the stand taken by them in Ext.P2. It is stated that due to an over sight the plan was approved and that the proposal to widen the road from 12.14 metres to 18.25 metres was not noticed when the building permit was issued and that Ext.P2 was issued to cure that omission. 4. I heard Sri.P.Ramachandran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. P.A.Ahammed, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials placed on record. The respondents have no case that the petitioners have put up a building in deviation of the approved plan. The fact that in respect of the building lying adjacent to the petitioners building a learned single Judge of this WPC No.29609/2010 3 Court has by Ext.P4 judgment granted reliefs in identical circumstances is also not in dispute. The respondents have no case that the petitioners had furnished false information or that they were guilty of suppressing any material fact. From the stand taken by the respondents, it is clear that the omission, if any, is on their part in failing to take note of the proposal to widen the road from 12.14 metres to 18.25 metres. In such circumstances, I hold, as held by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.23818 of 2009 that the respondents cannot be heard to contend that they will not number the building or issue the occupancy certificate. I accordingly allow the writ petition, quash Ext.P2 and direct the respondents to reconsider the petitioners' application for issuance of occupancy certificate and for numbering the building without reference to the reason stated in Ext.P2. Necessary steps in that regard shall be taken and orders passed within two weeks from the date on which the petitioners produce a certified copy of this judgment before the first respondent. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.29609/2010 4 WPC No.29609/2010 5