IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 8402 of 2011(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. ANANDAN.T.B., AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. T.R.BHASKARAN, THAITHARA HOUSE(VAISHAVAM), KAVIL KADAVU, KODUNGALLOORE-680 664, THRISSUR DIST. 2. SANTHOSH T.B., AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. T.R.BHASKARAN, THAITHARA HOUSE(VAISHAVAM), KAVIL KADAVU, KODUNGALLORE-680 664, TRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KODUNGALLOOR MUNICIPALITY, KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPSENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. PIN-680 664. 2. THE SECRETARY, KODUNGALLOOR MUNICIPALITY KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 664. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY SRI.S.N.SREEKANTH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 8402 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner in absolute possession of 6.88 Ares of property comprised in Survey Number 248/4 of Lokamalaswaram Village. He has submitted an application for building permit before the respondents for construction of a five storied building. On the strength of Exts.P1 and P2 building permits the petitioner is carrying out the construction. Later, the petitioner was served with Ext.P4 notice dated 6.1.2010 requiring him to demolish the construction as he has failed to provide 3 meters set back between Municipality road and the building under construction in terms of the provisions under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. On receipt of Ext.P4, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P5. Thereafter, the second respondent has issued Ext.P6. Virtually, as per Ext.P6 the second respondent reiterated the directions in Ext.P4 and required the petitioner to demolish the construction so as to provide in such a manner to provide three meters open space WPC.8402/2011 : 2 : on the aforementioned side in terms of the relevant provisions of KMBR. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has completed the construction and submitted an application for issuance of completion certificate. In the meanwhile, the building was assessed to tax as is obvious from Ext.P10. Ext.P11 would reveal that the petitioner has remitted the tax pursuant to the said assessment of tax. Later, the petitioner was served with Ext.P15 notice. It is stated therein that even after receiving Exts.P4 and P6 the petitioner had not demolished the construction in terms of the instructions and therefore, the completion certificate could be issued only after demolition of the construction effected in violation of the provisions under KMBR and in accordance with Exts.P4 and P6. On finding that the request of the petitioner for issuance of completion certificate would not be considered favourably the petitioner has submitted Ext.P16, inter alia, requesting the respondent to conduct an inspection into the premises and to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to prove that he had not violated any of the provisions under the KMBR and also the conditions in the building permits. This writ petition has been filed WPC.8402/2011 : 3 : mainly challenging Ext.P15. The further prayer is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to issue completion certificate to the petitioner in respect of the building in question. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel for the respondents. Admittedly, the petitioner was served with Exts.P4 and P6. However, there is no challenge against Exts.P4 and P6 in this writ petition. There is no case for the petitioner that as against Exts.P4 and P6 he had approached any other authorities. In the absence of any challenge against Exts.P4 and P6 I do not think that the correctness and legality of Ext.P15 could be considered in this writ petition as Ext.P15 is only the inevitable consequence of the failure on the part of the petitioner to comply with the instructions given by the respondent under Exts.P4 and P6. In short, unless and until the petitioner successfully assails Exts.P4 and P6, Ext.P15 cannot be said to be illegal. As already noticed hereinbefore, in this writ petition also the petitioner has not chosen to challenge Exts.P4 and P6. In the absence of any challenge WPC.8402/2011 : 4 : against Exts.P4 and P6, the consequential order viz., Ext.P15 cannot be permitted to be challenged by the petitioner as it would be nothing but permitting the petitioner to challenge Ext.P4 and P6 indirectly. There is no case for the petitioner that as against Exts.P4 and P6 he had approached any other authorities. In the said circumstances, this writ petition carrying challenge against Ext.P15, which is a dependent order, is devoid of any merit and it is liable to be failed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. However, It is made clear that the dismissal of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner challenging Exts.P4 and P6 strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge