IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 21912 of 2011(L) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. M.B.MOHAMMED ALI, MEZHUKATTIL HOUSE, ERUMATHALA P.O., CHUNANGAMVELI, ALUVA - 683 112. 2. HAJIRA MOHAMMED ALI, MEZHUKATTIL HOUSE, ERUMATHALA P.O., CHUNANGAMVELI, ALUVA - 683 112. BY ADV. SRI. P.RAMAKRISHNAN SRI. T.C.KRISHNA SRI. C.ANIL KUMAR SMT. ASHA K.SHENOY SRI. PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ZONAL OFFICE, EDAPPALLY- 682024. 3. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 11. BY ADV. SRI.S.CHANDRASENAN, SC, COCHIN CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BKA WP(C).No. 21912 of 2011(L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT. P2: COPY OF THE APPROVED PLAN ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.05.2011 BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE BKA HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.21912 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P3 to the extent it demands payment on FAR fees and for a direction commanding the respondents to extend the period of petitioners' building permit on payment of 10% of the existing building permit fee as envisaged in Rule 15A(3) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. 2. The petitioners are the holders of a building permit. Ext.P1 is the building permit issued by the Corporation. Petitioners sought extension of the period of permit as envisaged under Rules 15A(3) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules by paying 10% of the existing building permit fee. The 2nd respondent issued Ext.P3 demanding FAR fee for considering their application for extension of the period of building permit. It is pointed out that as per Ext.P2 plan the FAR of the petitioners building was 2.49 which was permissible at the time of granting approval. According to the petitioner the respondents are ::2:: W.P.(C).No.21912 Of 2011 bound to demand only 10 % of the building permit fee namely, Rs.3,658/- for extension of building permit. It is also pointed out that a joint reading of Rule 11(3) and Rule 15A(3) would show that the extension of building permit is not depended on payment of FAR fees and that the demand for FAR fee in Ext.P3 is illegal. Relying on Rule 31(1) and 31(2) it is pointed out that the maximum permissible FAR fee for special residential buildings was 2.50 and that in Ext.P2 plan of the petitioners for the proposed building which has FAR of 2.49 was approved without demanding FAR fees and that the maximum permissible FAR was altered only in the year 2010 and therefore the same cannot have any effect on the approved plan in Ext.P2. 3. The 3rd respondent, Secretary of the Corporation of Cochin, in their counter affidavit filed, pointed out that Rule 15A (3) of Kerala Municipality Building Rules prescribes the fee for extension of period of permit. As per the said Rule, the fee for extension of permit shall be 10% of the development permit fee or building permit fee, as the case may be, in force at the time of granting extension. The permit fee is shown in Schedule II of ::3:: W.P.(C).No.21912 Of 2011 KMBR 1999. The fee leviable includes fees calculated under Schedule II of Kerala Municipality Building Rules and the fee as per Rule 31(2) table (2). It is also stated that Ext.P4 representation submitted by the petitioner was considered and the same was dismissed. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, Ext.P3 communication is quashed. The writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders afresh on the application for extension of period of building permit, after considering the contentions raised by the petitioners as stated above and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-