IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14826 of 2008(M) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. M.MADHU, PUTHENPURAKKAL, NAGAMBADAM, KOTTAYAM. 2. B.SIKHA, MALIYIL HOUSE, NAGAMBADAM, KOTTAYAM. 3. C.RADHAMANI,MALAYIL HOUSE, NAGAMBADAM. KOTTAYAM. 4. DR.S.ANILKUMAR,KALPATHARU(MALIYIL), NAGAMBADAM,KOTTAYAM. 5. T.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN, THEKKEMURIYIL,NAGAMBADAM,KOTTAYAM. 6. S.SAM,PUTHENMALIYIL,NAGAMBADAM, KOTTAYAM. 7. P.K.AJITHKUMAR, MAELAKAL HOUSE,NAGAMBADAM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.T.R.SADEESAN SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNEMENT SECFRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM. W.P.(C) NO.14826/2008 2. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER,KOTTARATHIL BUILDING, PALAYAM,TRIVANDRUM. 3. KERALA STATE POLLUTION COTNTROL BOARD, PLAMOOD, TRIVANDRUM, REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY. 4. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,TRIVANDRUM. 5. KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 6. SRI.K.K.MURALI,MALIYIL HOUSE, MAMANGALAM, PALARIVATTOM P.O., KOCHI-24. 7. DR.M.K.GEETHA, MALIYIL HOUSE,MAMANGALAM,PALARIVATTOM P.O., KOCHI-24. 8. JEWEL HOMES (P) LTD.,CASGRADE, 2ND FLOOR, DESHABHIMANI JUNCTION, KOCHI-682 017, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS SRI,C.S.MANILAL SRI.V.V.ASOKAN - R8 SMT.S.AMINA - R8 SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH,SC, RAILWAYS -R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO. 14826/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE PLAN APPROVED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT ON 20.4.07. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE PERMIT DT. 20.11.07 OBTAINED BY RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT WHICH APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DT. 13.12.07. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERSADDRESSED TO THE CHIEF MINISTER ON 19.12.07. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 23.1.08 OF THE 5HT RESPONDENT. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 4.4.08 IN APPEAL NO.69/08 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNEMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R(a):- COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3857/07 OF SRO, KOTTAYAM. EXT.R8(b):- COPY OF THE SITE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R8(c):- COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN APPEAL NO.69/2008. EXT.R8(d):- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE ACCESS/ ROAD LEADING TO THE CONSTRUCTION SITE OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R8(e):- COPY OF THE SHOWING THE ACCESS TO THE CONSTRUCTION SITE OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 14826 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: MAY 29, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P2 is the building permit issued by the respondent Municipality in favour of respondents 6 and 7. Complaining that in that process Building Rules were violated, petitioners submitted Ext.P4 complaint before the Municipality itself. Acting upon the complaint so made, Ext.P2 building permit was suspended by Ext.P5 order and that was challenged by respondents 6 and 7 before the Tribunal. Though in the proceedings before the Tribunal, the petitioners on whose complaint the whole proceedings were initiated were not made parties, the Tribunal passed Ext.P6 order and it is challenging Ext.P6 this writ petition has been filed. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners was that without impleading them and hearing them, the Tribunal ought not have passed Ext.P6. WP(C) 14826/08 2 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 and 7 rightly points out that it was on account of the fact that they were not aware of the role of the petitioners in the proceedings leading to Ext.P5, that the petitioners were not impleaded in the proceedings filed before the Tribunal. 4. Irrespective of whether it was deliberate or not, the fact remains that the petitioners, at whose instance Ext.P5 order was passed, were not made parties in the proceedings before the Tribunal which resulted in Ext.P6 order. Obviously, the petitioners were entitled to be heard at the time when the validity of Ext.P5 was considered by the Tribunal. Since they were not made parties and they were not heard in the proceedings which resulted in Ext.P6, I feel that Ext.P6 deserves to be interfered with. 5. Accordingly Ext.P6 will stand set aside. However, it is clarified that it will be open to respondents 6 and 7 to implead the petitioners in the proceedings before the Tribunal, in which case, the Tribunal will issue notice to the petitioners and the Municipality and hear the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in the WP(C) 14826/08 3 matter. I also clarify that I have not considered the merits of the respective cases of the parties and that it will be entirely for the Tribunal to deal with the case on merits. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-