Disposed

V.C.Antony v. Infra Housing (P) Ltd. & Others

Kerala HC12 Mar 2008WP(C)/9066/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a government order granting building exemption. Instead of deciding on merits, the Court directed the Corporation Secretary to inspect the alleged construction deviations and take a decision.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Secretary, Corporation of Cochin to verify allegations of deviating construction plans under Ext.P10, conduct local inspection, and decide after hearing parties within one month.

V.C.Antony Vs Infra Housing (P) Ltd. & Others — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 9066 of 2006(D) -------------------------------------PETITIONER: --------------------

¶4

V.C. ANTONY, S/O. V.A. CHACKO, VILLANASSERY HOUSE, VIDYANAGAR, KADAVANTHARA, COCHIN-20. BY ADV. SRI.SATISH MURTHY SMT.UMADEVI M. SRI.SHINU J.PILLAI

¶5

RESPONDENTS:

¶6

-------------------------

¶7

1. INFRA HOUSING (P) LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, REGD. OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR, CL5 BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM.

¶8

2. THE JOINT SECRETARY TO LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIATE, TRIVANDRUM.

¶9

3. KOCHI CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY IS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

4. THE SENIOR TOWN PLANNER (VIGILANCE), OFFICE OF THE SENIOR TOWN PLANNER, TRIVANDRUM.

¶11

5. THE SENIOR TOWN PLANNER, OFFICE OF TE SENIOR TOWN PLANNER, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

6. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOSE KURIAKOSE R2,R4&R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR BY ADV. SRI.C.S.DIAS SRI.ANIL K.NARENDRAN R3 BY ADV. SMT.A.G.ANEETHA, SC, COCHIN CORPN. R6 BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA, SC, P.C.B. SMT.K.K.THULASY BHAI,SC,POLLUTION C.BOARD

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Kss

¶16

WPC.NO.9066/2006 D

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT.P1:	COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 25/05/2004 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P2:	CIOPY OF BUILDING PERMIT NO.KRP1/526/03 DTD. 13/01/2004 GIVEN BY 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3:	COPY OF INTIMATION DTD. 3/07/2004 GIVEN BY 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4:	COPY OF INTIMATION DTD. 11/01/2005 GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P5:	COPY OF LETTER DTD. 16/03/2005 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P6:	COPY OF ORDER DTD. 27/08/2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7:	COPY OF THE BUILDING PLAN UNDER PERMIT NO.KRP1/526/03.
EXT.P8:	COPY OF THE BUILDING PLAN UNDER PERMIT NO.KPR1/303/04.
EXT.P9:	COPY OF THE CONSENT GRANTED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DTD. 2/03/2007.
EXT.P10:	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 27/02/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN.
1ST RESPON	DENT'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.R1(1):	COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH OF THE APARTMENT COMPLEX DTD. 05/04/2006.
EXT.R1(2):	COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH OF THE APARTMENT COMPLEX DTD. 05/04/2006.
EXT.R1(3):	COPY OF THE INSURANCE POLICY ISSUED BY UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. DTD. 20/08/2004.
EXT.R1(4):	COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM DTD. 01/10/2005.

Kss

..2/-

...2.....

WPC.NO.9066/2006 D

¶24

3RD RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶25

EXT.R3(A): COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.KRP-1/526/03 DTD. 13/1/2004 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT (EXHIBIT – P1). EXT.R3(B): COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.KRP-1/303/04 DTD. 18/06/2004 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(C): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KRP-1/303/04 DTD. 9/05/2005 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.

¶30

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.9066 of 2006

¶31

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 12^th March, 2008

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioner who is aggrieved by construction of a high rise building by the 1^st respondent-Builder has filed this Writ Petition for quashing Ext.P6 order issued by the Government granting exemption to the 1^st respondent from building rules in the matter of the construction proposed by them. The petitioner also prays that the third respondent, the Secretary of the Corporation be directed to demolish the constructions made by the 1^st respondent.

¶34

Detailed counter affidavits have been filed in this case by the builder and also by the Secretary of the Corporation and respondents 2, 4 and 5. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out to me that in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the Government it has been confessed that the granting of exemption by the Government was not proper, I am not inclined to decide on the merits of the grounds raised in the Writ Petition or the contentions raised through the counter affidavit. It is seen from I.A.No.3373 of 2008 that the petitioner has filed an application before the Secretary of the Corporation invoking Rules 16 and 19. On going through Ext.P10 application, I feel that the petitioner wanted to invoke Rule

¶35

W.P.C.No.9066/06 - 2 -

¶36

18 also since the allegations are that the constructions were found deviate from the approved plan and in violation of the Rules. Since Ext.P10 has been submitted by the petitioner before the Secretary, it is only appropriate that the Secretary of the Corporation takes an early decision on Ext.P10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition will stand disposed of issuing the following directions:

¶37

The Secretary of the Corporation will take up Ext.P10, conduct necessary local inspection for verifying the correctness of the allegations in Ext.P10, hear the petitioner as well as the 1^st respondent and take a correct decision on Ext.P10 at the earliest and at any rate within one month of receiving copy of this judgment. If occupancy certificate is yet to the issued to the 1^st respondent, any occupancy certificate will be subject to the decision taken by the Corporation on Ext.P10.

¶38

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

¶39

srd

V.C.Antony v. Infra Housing (P) Ltd. & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.C.Antony v. Infra Housing (P) Ltd. & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.U.Eldose Vs the Asst. Exe. Engineer, N.H.

Renjith Kumar Vs Muvattupuzha Municipality & Others

Nobi Vs Thrissur Municipal Corporation & Others

Gopakumaran Vs Achuthankutty Menon @ K.P.a.Mani

Markazu Ssaquafathi Sunniyya Vs N.Jayanandan

Pradeep Paul Vs Secretary, Avinisseri Grama Panchayat