IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5146 of 2010(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PRADEEP KUMAR.N. "KEERTHI", PERODE.P.O.,NADAPURAM VIA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, NORTH ZONE, PALAYAM ROAD, KOZHIKODE. 4. KUNNUMMAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE. MS.K.R.DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.5146 of 2010 (P) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 17th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a registered Engineer under the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. He drew a site plan and building plan for one Shri.P.T.Surendran for the construction of a commercial building in RS No.54/2 of Kunnummal Grama Panchayat. The building was constructed and according to the petitioner, on completion of construction, completion certificate was issued by yet another Engineer. 2. It is stated that, later on proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by Ext.P3 under Rule 153(7) of the Building Rules with an allegation that the petitioner drew the plan in violation of various provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. He submitted Ext.P4 reply, which in fact is in the nature of a confession. The matter was considered and finally by Ext.P6 order was issued by the 3rd respondent finding the petitioner guilty of having prepared the plan in violation of the Building Rules and WP(C) No.5146/2010 -2- cancelling his licence. 3. He filed Ext.P8 appeal before the 1st respondent, which resulted in Ext.P9 order. In Ext.P9, it has been held that even going by Ext.P4 reply submitted to Ext.P3, the petitioner has admitted his guilt and therefore his guilt stands proved. However, the punishment of cancellation of licence has been set aside and the licence has been ordered to be suspended for a period of one year. It is challenging Exts.P6 & P9, the writ petition has been filed. 4. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who sought to challenge the aforesaid orders. 5. Obviously, proceedings initiated is under Rule 153(7) of the Building Rules, which provides that the Registering Authority may, on complaint by any person or on the report from any Municipality or suo motu, take action against any person registered, for violating any of the provisions of the Building Rules. Sub Rule (8) provides that the Registering Authority may, if convinced on enquiry that the person against whom action has been taken under sub rule (7), has violated any Rule, suspend the registration for a period not exceeding one year or cancel registration and disqualify WP(C) No.5146/2010 -3- him for future registration. From the facts as noticed above, it is not a matter of dispute that the plan prepared by the petitioner was in violation of various provisions of the Building Rules. If that be so, the Registering Authority was perfectly justified in having initiated action under Rule 153(7). In such a situation, the question is whether the punishment imposed on the petitioner is a disproportionate one. A reading of sub rule (8) shows that suspension for a period not exceeding one year is the minimum punishment prescribed. Consequently, the punishment imposed on the petitioner which reduced by Ext.P9 cannot be said to be disproportionate or illegal for any reason. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg