Disposed

K.D.Rajendra Babu v. Perumpalam Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC2 Jul 2012WP(C)/3284/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding construction on Perumpalam Island, the High Court directed the Panchayat to forward project papers to the Coastal Zone Management Authority for CRZ violation checks. The Court resolved that without such clearance, no action on numbering or tax assessment can be taken, maintaining the interim order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Panchayat to forward papers to Coastal Zone Management Authority for CRZ examination; interim order maintained.

K.D.Rajendra Babu Vs Perumpalam Grama Panchayat — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2012/11TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 3284 of 2007 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

K.D. RAJENDRA BABU,

¶8

PROPRIETOR, M/S. NENCO VIRIGIN OIL,PERUMPALAM P.O. CHERTHALA, RESIDING AT "BABU NIVAS" MANNANCHERRY P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 538.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.N.RAGHURAJ

¶10

SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

PERUMPALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

¶13

PERUMPALAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 570 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

THE SECRETARY, PERUMPALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PERUMPALAM P.O. ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶15

THE KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

¶16

AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, SASTHRI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

STATE OF KERALA,

¶18

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, SASTHRI BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶19

UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.

¶20

BY ADV. SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, CGC BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THANKAPPAN

¶21

BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.MOHAMMED SHAFI BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH,SC,COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT BY ADV. SRI.PRAKASH C.VADAKKAN. J., SC, KCZMA BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C).3284/07

APPENDIX

EXHIBITS

P1TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT DAED 25.4.05 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER & RUBCO

¶27

P2TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SANCTION LETTER DATED 30.5.05 ISSUED BY THE INDUS IND BANK TO THE PETITIONER

¶28

P3TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS ISSUED BY M/S FEDERAL BANK TO THE PETITIONER

¶29

P4TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE TO THE PETITIONER

¶30

P5TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGISTRATION-CUM-MEMBERSHIP CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.RCMC.NO.5351/MPG 2006-07 DATED 17.5.06

¶31

P6TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.A1-301/2006 DATED 10.10.06 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶32

P7TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.11.06 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶33

P8TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN SLP © NO.5038/03 DATED 25.4.03

¶34

/true copy/

¶35

P.A. To Judge

¶36

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶37

........................................ W.P.(C).3284/2007

¶38

.............................................. Dated this the 2^nd day of July, 2012

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

Petitioner says that he constructed a residential

¶41

house and a temporary shed in his property situated in the Perumpalam Island. According to him, at the time when the construction was undertaken, Building Rules were not implemented in the Panchayat and therefore, it was not necessary for him to have obtained building permit. He completed the construction and applied to the Panchayat to number the building and to assess the building for tax purposes. Panchayat declined the request by Ext.P6 communication stating that the building has been constructed in violation of the Coastal Regulation Zone notification. It was there upon that this writ petition was filed and this Court passed interim order dated 31.1.2007 directing the Panchayat to provisionally number the building and complete the assessment on that basis. This order has also been complied with. It is thereafter that this writ petition is now coming up for hearing.

¶42

W.P.(C).3284/07

¶43

¶44

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent submits that in view of Circular No.048/ENV/2006/CZMA dated 17.6.2006 issued by the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority to Local Self Government Institutions, any applications received by the Local Authority for development or other purposes within the CRZ should be forwarded to the Management Authority and clearance should be obtained. It is stated that this procedure has not been complied with.

¶45

I have gone through the Circular which requires the Local Authorities to forward the applications received, with the site plan and building plans to the Coastal Zone Management Authority for clearance.

¶46

Admittedly, such a procedure has not been complied with in this case. Only if such a procedure is complied with, will the Authority be able to clarify whether the construction in question offends the CRZ notification and only if the construction is an offending

¶47

W.P.(C).3284/07

¶48

¶49

one, can the Panchayat decline to number and assess the buildings as sought for by the petitioner.

¶50

Therefore, I direct that on the production of a copy of this judgment, Panchayat will forward necessary papers in relation to the structures of the petitioner to the third respondent as directed in the Circular dated 17.6.2006. On receipt of the records as above, the third respondent will examine whether there is any violation of the CRZ notification insofar as the structures constructed by the petitioner are concerned. Clarification in this regard will be given to the Panchayat and on that basis Panchayat will take further action on the application made by the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the interim order dated 31.7.2007 will remain in force.

¶51

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶52

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶53

mrcs

¶54

/true copy/ PA To Judge

K.D.Rajendra Babu v. Perumpalam Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.D.Rajendra Babu v. Perumpalam Grama Panchayat

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

M/S.Leader Properties and Estates Private Limited Vs Corporation of Kochi

Thrissur Corpn.Contractors Association Vs State of Kerala

R.Thyagarajan Vs Karakulam Grama Panchayath

Sukumari Vs Corporation of Thrissur

K.G.Thomas Vs the Corporation of Kochi

E. Jacob Varghese Vs State of Kerala