IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2009 / 16TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 6542 of 2007(D) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ INDIRA, KONCHU KARIKULANGARA, ANAYARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT PANAYI PUTHEN VEEDU, KARIKULANGARA, OLLAMKUZHY, ANAYARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS.MR.PATHIRIPALLY S.KRISHNAKUMARI MR.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. JAYANTHI, KOCHU KARIKULANGARA, ANAYARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. JAYAN, KONCHU KARIKULANGARA, ANAYARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY MR.P.K.VIJAYAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.6542 OF 2007 (D) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner constructed a residential building on the basis of the approved plan and building permit issued by the first respondent. Later on first respondent received complaints from respondents 3 and 4 making allegation that the building was constructed in violation of the building permit and plan. Notice was issued, parties were heard and finally the first respondent issued Ext.P2 order requiring the petitioner to demolish the offending portion of the building and to maintain open space in terms of the rules. 2. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order as Appeal No.405/06. The Tribunal for local Government Institutions heard the parties and rendered Ext.P3 order dismissing the appeal. It is thereupon that challenging Exts.P2 and P3 the writ petition is filed. 3. The main contention raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal appears to be that between the petitioner and respondents there were civil disputes are pending. It is stated that WPC.No.6542/07 :2 : O.S.No.1577/05 for demarcation and fixation of boundary is the suit pending before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. It is stated that the civil court has also passed an order of injunction restraining the party respondents from trespassing into the petitioner's property. On this basis it was contended that during the pendency of the civil dispute, the Corporation ought not have issued Ext.P2. The Tribunal has dealt with the said contention and found that the corporation is not a party to the civil suit. It was held that in respect of the allegation involving violation of the provisions of the Building Rules, Corporation is the competent authority to initiate proceedings and the pendency of the civil suit is not a bar. Accordingly that contention was rejected. Proceeding further the Tribunal found that in the plan submitted to the corporation for approval, open space shown was much more than what is now ordered to be maintained. On this basis it has been found that there is violation of the approved plan and permit. In view of the facts as noticed above, I see absolutely no reason to take a view contrary to what is taken in Ext.P2. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.6542/07 :3 :