The words “Central” and “State” should not be used with the names of the NGOs: Kerala High Court

WP(C).No.2366 OF 2015(S) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY TUESDAY THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 29TH POUSHA 1942 WP(C).No.2366 OF 2015(S STATE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COUNCIL AGED 64 YEARS CHELAD KANNUR 670014. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SATHEESH KUMAR PAMBAN S O.LATE T.RAGHAVAN CHELAD KANNUR 670014 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KANNUR P.O. KANNUR 670001 REPRESENTED BY ITS TOWN PLANNERDEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS MANAGING DIRECTOR EMAD BUILDING GLOBAL VILLAGE BANK ROAD KANNUR 670001 R1 & R3 BY ADV. SURIN GEORGE IPE SENIOR G.P R2 BY ADV. SMT.S.AMBILY R4 BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN2 R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.MOHANDASHAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19 01 2021 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING WP(C).No.2366 OF 2015(S) 3 JUDGMENT Dated this the 19th day of January 2021 S. Manikumar C. J State Environment Protection Council Chelad Kannur has filed the instant writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash Exhibit P2 revised building permit dated 05.02.2010 for an additional area of upto six floors Exhibit P4 report dated 25.08.2014 and the action to regularize the construction 2. Petitioner has also sought for a mandamus directing the Kannur Municipality represented by its Secretary Kannur 2nd respondent to demolish the illegal constructions made by Mr. K. P Mohammed Ashraf Managing Director Emad Building Global Village Kannur 4th respondent 3. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as According to the petitioner the Secretary Kannur Municipality Kannur the 2nd respondent had issued Exhibit P2 building permit to WP(C).No.2366 OF 2015(S) 4 Mr. K. P. Mohammed Ashraf Managing Director Emad Building Global Village Kannur 4th respondent in violation of Rules 34(2) and 31(2) of the Kerala Municipal Building Rules 1999. Acting on the complaint the Town Planner Department of Local Self Government Institutions Thiruvananthapuram 3rd respondent has conducted an enquiry and the Principal Secretary to the Government Local Self Government Department Government Secretariat Thiruvananthapuram 1st respondent had directed the Secretary Kannur Municipality Kannur the 2nd respondent vide Exhibit P3 to revoke the building permit and partial occupancy certificate already Instead of taking necessary action the Secretary Kannur Municipality Kannur the 2nd respondent has issued Exhibit P5 stating that they were not aware of the amendment and it is only an omission and therefore necessary steps be taken to regularize the same Petitioner has further submitted that the unauthorized construction on the side of National Highway wherein Multiplex is proposed to be started would cause severe threat to the life of the people WP(C).No.2366 OF 2015(S) 5 4. Counter affidavit filed by the Town Planner Kannur is reproduced hereunder: “3. It is hereby submitted that originally the 2nd respondent granted building permit dated 21.02.2008 for constructing a 7 storied commercial building with 2 basement floors ground floor and 4 upper floors. Later the permit was revised on 05.02.2010 by granting permission to construct 2 more upper floors and a stair room. The owner obtained No Objection certificate dated 30.06.2009 from the Executive Engineer National Highway Division Kannur and Initial No Objection Certificate from Fire and Rescue Services bearing No.G1 523 2010 dated 4. It is hereby submitted that Kerala Municipality Building Rules was amended by SRO No. 1070 2009 dated 16.12.2009 On an inspection conducted by the Senior Town Planner(Vigilance) the following 3 violations were noted a) Open space having width of 5m was not available Violation of Rule 117(1 b) Only 138 numbers of parking spaces are provided even though 188 numbers are required as per Rule 34No space is provided for loading and unloading as provided under Rule 34(6 Subsequently the Owner has increased the area of the Plot by purchasing the adjoining properties. The violations pointed out as a) andwere rectified and the shortage of parking spaces was reduced from 50 to 32. On the basis of the report of the Senior WP(C).No.2366 OF 2015(S) 6 Town Planner(Vigilance) the 2nd respondent issued a notice on 27.02.2013 directing demolition of unauthorized construction carried out in the building. Later the 2nd respondent issued Occupancy Certificate on 09.01.2014 upto 4th Floor subject to production of consent from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and final No Objection Certificate from the Fire and 5. It is hereby submitted that the owner also submitted an application for regularizing the construction effected on the 5th and 6th floors on the building in question as per the Provisions of Kerala Municipality Building(Regularization of unauthorized construction) Rules 2014 and the matter is pending before the Government. At present no application is pending in response of commencement of a multiplex Theatre complex in the building in 5. On this day when the matter came up for further hearing Mr P. B. Sahasranaman learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the counter affidavit filed by the Town Planner Kannur stating that an application has been filed by Mr. K. P. Mohammed Ashraf Managing Director Emad Building Global Village Kannur respondent No. 4 for regularization of the construction effected i. e of 5th and 6th floors of the building in question as per the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building 7 construction) Rules 2014 writ petition may be disposed of. Said submission of the learned counsel is placed on record 6. Heard Mr. P. B. Sahasranaman learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Surin George Ipe learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 3 Smt. S. Ambily for the Kannur Municipality represented by its Secretary Kannur 2nd respondent Dr. K. P Satheesan learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent and perused the pleadings and the material on record 7. Name of the petitioner is described as the State Environment Protection Council. NGOs or associations or societies should not give any impression to the public at large that it is a statutory body under any enactment State Central as the case may be. However in the case on hand we are of the view that the petitioner gives an impression as if the petitioner is a statutory body. Needless to say that NGOs or association or societies registered under the Kerala Societies Registration Act 1860 as far as possible should avoid using the name Central or State or National 8. Though the instant writ petition is regarding the alleged WP(C).No.2366 OF 2015(S) 8 construction of a building and violations taking note of the fact that public at large should not be misled by any institution giving an impression that it is a statutory body because of the nomenclature with the description Central or State or National under the provisions of the Kerala Societies Registration Act 1860 in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India we deem it fit to implead the Inspector General of Registration State of Kerala as additional 5th respondent to this writ petition for the limited purpose of considering as to whether such NGOs or association or societies be permitted to register with the specific words Central or State or 9. We direct the registering authority to take a decision that while registering no private body should give an impression that it is a statutory body. Inspector General of Registration State of Kerala is directed to take appropriate decision within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the light of the fact that Mr. K. P. Mohammed Ashraf Managing Director Emad Building Global Village Kannur 4th respondent has submitted an application for regularizing the WP(C).No.2366 OF 2015(S) 9 construction effected on the 5th and 6th floors of the building in question and placing on record the submission of Mr. P. B Sahasranaman learned counsel for the petitioner with the observations stated supra writ petition is disposed of. SHAJI P. CHALY P. A. TO JUDGE WP(C).No.2366 OF 2015(S) 10 PETITIONER S S EXHIBITS TRUE COPY OF THE APPLLICATION MADE TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29.09.2014 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED BUILDING PERMIT BEARING NO.E3 BA 249 08 DATED 05 02 2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.30503 RB2 2014 LSGD DATED 04.06.2014 ALONG WITH THE REPORT OF THE 3RD TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25 08 2014 TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTIAL OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DATED 09 01 2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Summary: NGOs shouldn’t use the terms “Central”, “State”, and “National” with their names so as to avoid the confusion that it’s a statutory body run by either Central or State Government. Kerala High Court gave the judgment stating the above-cited reasons in the case of State Environment Protection Council vs. State of Kerala [WP(C).No.2366 of 2015(S)] headed by the bench of Hon’ble Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly. In the above-cited case, the State Environment Protection Council (Petitioner) of Kannur had filed a writ petition of certiorari to quash the building permit for constructing additional six floors in the building. Writ of Mandamus was also filed against the respondent for illegal construction on the building. According to the facts, Respondent had given the permit to KP Mohammad Ashraf, MD (Global Village, Kannur) in violation of Rules 34(2) and 31(2) of the Kerala Municipal Building Rules, 1999. As a result, an inquiry had been conducted to revoke the building permit and partial occupancy certificate (which was already given). In this matter, instead of taking necessary actions, excuses were made by the respondents. In addition to the facts, the petitioner also contended that the illegal construction of 6 storey building on the side of the National Highway would cause a severe threat to the life of the people. As an effect, an affidavit was filed by the town planner of Kannur stating that building construction had violated the rules of Kerala Municipal Building Rules, 1999 including: In response to the above affidavit, an application had been made by KP Mohammad Ashraf (Respondent) for regularizing the construction of the building, for which the learned counsel of the petitioner had argued that since the rules were violated, further construction of the building should not commence. The learned counsel of the respondents had argued that whether such private NGO based in Kannur has the right to file such writ petition challenging the construction of the building. Arguments were held regarding the name of the petitioner where, it was named as State Environment Protection Council, therefore, giving an impression that it’s been run by the Government or it’s a statutory body. On the contrary, it’s just a private NGO. Court held that, while registering, no private body should give an impression that it’s a statutory body. HC stated that “NGOs or associations or societies, should not give any impression, to the public at large that, it is a statutory body, under any enactment, State / Central, as the case may be. Needless to say that NGOs or associations, or societies, registered under the Kerala Societies Registration Act, 1860, as far as possible, should avoid, using the name ‘Central’ or ‘State’ or ‘National”. HC stated that regarding the alleged construction of the building and violations, the public shouldn’t be misled by the institution in the exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. HC directed that the NGOs shouldn’t use the word “Central”, “State”, and “National” with their names under the provisions of the Kerala Societies Registration Act, 1860 because it might mislead the public at large resulting in confusions and unauthorized use of the powers.