IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19340 of 2008(B) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- N.SHANMUGHAN, AGED 57, S/O.NATESAN MUTHALIAR,7/239, VADAKKETHARA, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENT: ------------------------- CHITTUR THATHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.19340/2008 B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DTD. 17/04/2006 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 9/01/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPLY FROM THE RESPONDENT DTD. 30/01/2008 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: A FEW PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE IS PRODUCED. EXT.P5: COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.NO.351/07 MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 19340 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: JULY 17, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P3. Ext.P3 is the response given by the Municipality in answer to a query raised by the petitioner invoking the provisions under the Right to Information Act. 2. The facts of the case are that by Ext.P1, building permit was granted to the petitioner for construction of a residential building. According to the petitioner, on the strength of Ext.P1, construction was completed by about August 2007 and completion report was also submitted to the Municipality requesting for assignment of building number. There was no response to the application made and therefore the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 requesting that he be intimated about the decision that has been taken by the Municipality. In response to Ext.P2, he got Ext.P3 communication. WP(C) 19340/08 2 3. In Ext.P3 he has been informed that the construction was in deviation of the plan approved, that of the 13 cents of land, the order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order covers only 5 cents and that the construction of the compound wall obstructs flow of water. It is also stated that in connection with the obstruction to the water flow, there is a litigation pending. It is challenging this order, the writ petition is filed. 4. Though notice was issued by this Court on 26.6.2008 and service has been completed, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent Municipality. 5. Admittedly building permit was granted to the petitioner and he had submitted completion report and sought assignment of building number in order to enable him to occupy the building. Since there was no response to his application, he submitted Ext.P2 and only in reply thereto that Ext.P3 was given. In Ext.P3, without even putting the petitioner on notice, conclusions have been WP(C) 19340/08 3 arrived at. One of the conclusions arrived at is that the building has been construction in deviation with the approved plan. Ext.P3 does not say in what manner deviation has taken place. If at all there is any deviation, petitioner submits that he is willing to rectify the same. But, however, as he has not been intimated of the nature of the deviations, as at present, he is not in a position to rectify the mistakes. 6. In so far as the obstruction to the flow of water alleged against the petitioner is concerned, admittedly there is a suit pending as OS 351/2007 in the Munsiff's Court, Chittur and, as at present, there is no order adverse to the petitioner. Therefore, the pendency of the suit by itself need not stand in the way of the Municipality in considering the request made by the petitioner for assignment of building number. 7. For the aforesaid reasons I feel that Ext.P3 as such cannot be justified. Therefore, I quash Ext.P3 and direct WP(C) 19340/08 4 that the Municipality shall intimate the petitioner on the nature and extend of the alleged deviations from the plan approved by it. This shall be done by the Municipality within three weeks of production of a copy of this judgment and it will be the obligation of the petitioner to rectify the alleged deviations within a period of three months thereafter. It is also directed that depending upon the outcome of OS 351/2007, the petitioner should take remedial action in so far as the alleged obstruction to flow of water is concerned. 8. In the meantime, I direct that the Municipality shall assign a provisional number to the building and its continuance or otherwise will depend upon the compliance with the aforesaid directions. It is directed that the petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment to the Municipality and within two weeks thereafter, building number shall be given on a provisional basis. Writ petition is disposed of as above. WP(C) 19340/08 5 ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-