IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20248 of 2009(A) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- AVARUKUTTY HAJI, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O.KOYAMKUTTY, MUSALIYAM VEETTIL, KEECHERI PO, THRISSUR KERALA. BY MR.P.VIJAYA BHANU, ADVOCATE. MR.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL), ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. CHOONDAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH CHOONDAL, THRISSUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. ALI, S/O.MUKHARI, MULLAPPILLY HOUSE, KEECHERI P.O, ERANELLUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR. BY MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR), ADVOCATE, FOR R2. MS.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN, ADVOCATE, FOR R2. MR.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH), ADVOCATE, FOR R2. MR.B.V.JOY SANKER, ADVOCATE, FOR R1. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.20248/2009 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF the TAX RECEIPT No.4850980 DTD. 2.7.09. EXT. P2 : COPY OF ASSIGNMENT DEED DTD. 6.8.64. EXT. P3 : COPY OF RECEIPT No.A1956/2009 DTD. 18.6.09 ISSUED BY THE CHOONDAL PANCHAYATH. EXT. P4 : COPY OF COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY PETITIONER TO S.I. OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION DTD. 11.7.09. EXT. P5 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY PETITIONER TO R1 DTD. 13.7.09 AND RECEIPT No.A4-1416/2009 DTD. 13.7.09. EXT. P6 : COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT No.163/09-10 DTD. 8.7.09 ISSUED BY R1. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.20248 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T In this writ petition, the petitioner alleges that the 2nd respondent is constructing a commercial building very near to the petitioner's residential building in violation of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. Exhibit P4 is a complaint filed by the petitioner before the Police and Exhibit P5 is a representation filed before the Panchayath in the matter. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the Panchayath and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 3. From the statement filed by the 1st respondent, it is seen that the complaint raised by the petitioner was actually acted upon. The 2nd respondent is constructing only a room having a total area of 15.70m2. During the inspection it was found that the walls were partly constructed in accordance with the rules and no violation of the rules have been found. The 2nd respondent was directed not to make any entrance on the northern side and W.P.(C) No.20248/2009 2 permit has been issued strictly adhering to the Building Rules. It is also mentioned therein that both the parties have undertaken that they will settle the issue. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that only one room is being constructed for enabling his handicapped son to do some business in the room in question. Since the statement of the Panchayath shows that there is no violation in the matter, the main complaint raised by the petitioner in Exhibits P4 and P5 does not survive. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that so far the Panchayath has not communicated any reply to the petitioner. Therefore, since the Panchayath has already conducted a local inspection and has found that there is no violation of the Building Rules, an appropriate reply will be issued to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp