Allowed

St.Paul'S International School v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Mar 2008WP(C)/5846/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Kerala held that Rule 102(3) of the Kerala Municipalities Building Rules does not justify insisting on layout approval for existing buildings when granting a permit for a new construction. The court directed the Chief Town Planner to process the petitioner's application promptly, resolving the urgency for the school's expansion.

What did the court decide?

The respondent authority is directed to process the petitioner's building permit application without insisting on layout approval for existing buildings and must comply with this direction within thre

St.Paul'S International School Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2008 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 5846 of 2008(U)

PETITIONER:

ST.PAUL'S INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,

¶10

FR.JOSE CHELANGARA.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH

SRI.K.S.ROCKEY

RESPONDENTS:

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

THE KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶18

BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR BY STANDING COUNSEL RI.M.K. ABOOBACKER

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

¶21

=====================

¶22

W.P.(C)NO. 5846 OF 2008

¶23

=====================

¶24

DATED THIS THE 17^th day of March 2008

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The learned Government Pleader was asked to get instructions from

¶27

the 2^nd respondent, the Chief Town Planner, as to whether in the light of Rule 102(3) of the Kerala Municipalities Building Rules, it is proper to insist on lay out approval regarding the buildings which are already existing on the plot. The learned Government Pleader submits that under Rule 102(3) of the Rules it is possible for the Secretary of the local authority concerned to permit construction of new building provided that the proposed building satisfies the provision of the Kerala Municipalities Building Rules irrespective of whether the buildings already in existence in that plot satisfies the provisions of these Rules or not. Having gone through the relevant Rule, I feel that the insistence of the 2^nd respondent that the lay out approval should have been obtained in respect of the existing buildings before granting permit to the new proposed building is not justified. I, therefore, dispose of the writ petition itself directing the 2^nd respondent to return the petitioner's proposal which was forwarded to him by the 3^rd respondent so that the third

¶28

WPC 5846/2008 -2-

¶29

respondent will process the petitioner's application for building permit without insisting on lay out approval in respect of the existing buildings, however, in the light of the two provisos in Rule 102(3). The school is being conducted by a reputed management and they are expressing urgency in the matter since the construction and completion of the new building is essential for commencement of classes in accordance with the directions issued by the C.B.S.E. Considering the urgency it is directed that the 2^nd respondent shall comply with the direction herein early and at any rate within three weeks of receiving copy of this judgment.

¶30

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

¶31

ks.

St.Paul'S International School v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

St.Paul'S International School v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Aravindakshan Vs M/S.Amrita Enterprises (P) Ltd.Amrita Tv

Chakrapani Viswanathan Vs Santhosh Kumar

K.a.Abdul Salam Vs Sri.Mohammed Haneesh

A.Natarajan Vs Ponnummal

K.Abdul Azeez Vs the Malappuram District Panchayath

Mr.Joy E.P.@ Joseph Vs Corporation of Kochi