Dismissed

J. Jayan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Mar 2013RP/198/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court examined a review petition challenging an earlier judgment in a writ petition concerning a building permit and occupancy certificate. The court distinguished the cited precedent as not applicable to the specific facts and held that the grounds raised did not warrant reconsideration of the earlier judgment, dismissing the review petition.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was dismissed, relying on the earlier judgment without further arguments.

J. Jayan Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/24TH PHALGUNA 1934 RP.No. 198 of 2013 IN W.P.(C). NO. 14055/2012

¶5

-----------------------------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).14055/2012 DATED 06.02.2013

¶6

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

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS:

¶8

1. J. JAYAN AGED 60 YEARS SONOF JANARDHANAN, RESIDING AT KUNNIL HOUSE PARIPPALLY.P.O., KOLLAM-691 574.

¶9

2. SUNANDA BAI.C.K. AGED 48 YEARS WIFE OF JAYAN, RESIDING AT KUNNIL HOUSE PARIPPALLY.P.O., KOLLAM-691 574.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI. LEO GEORGE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 691 001.

¶13

2. DISTRICT SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER DISTRICT SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD KOLLAM. 691 001.

¶14

3. THE GENERAL MANAGER DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶15

4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS KOLLAM-691 001.

¶16

5. THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER KOLLAM-691 001.

¶17

6. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM-691 008.

¶18

RP.No. 198 of 2013

¶19

7. KALLUVATHUKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KALLUVATHUKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOLLAM-691 578.

¶20

8. THE SECRETARY KALLUVATHUKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOLLAM-691 578.

¶21

R1, R4 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LILLY K.T. R6 BY SRI.M.R.ARUNKUMAR, SC, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD R7 & R8 BY SRI. PIRAPPANCODE V. S. SUDHIR

¶22

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

DCS

¶24

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J

¶25

R.P. NO. 198 OF 2013 IN W.P.(C). NO. 14055 OF 2012

¶26

Dated this the 15^th day of March, 2013

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This review petition is filed on the ground that most of

¶29

the contentions urged by the petitioners has not been considered. The learned counsel also submits that the judgment of this Court in Heera Construction (P) Ltd. v. Corporation of Trivandrum [2008(3) KLT 553] was also not considered by this Court though the same was relied upon.

¶30

The main contention urged by the petitioners in the review is that under Section 8(2) of the Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Boards and Industrial Township Area Development Act 1999, once the Single Window Clearance Board has recommended to the authority to issue a license or permission, the same cannot be revoked at all. In fact before the Single Window Clearance Board the

¶31

R.P. NO. 198 OF 2013

¶32

¶33

Panchayath respondent have offered to grant license. The judgment relied upon is for the proposition that it is not open for the Corporation to cancel a building permit if the building is constructed in accordance with the plan and building permit.

¶34

The issue involved in the present case is slightly different and which has already been considered by this Court in the judgment. The petitioners wanted to put up an industrial unit and plan and application was submitted before the Panchayath. They have only issued a permit for commercial construction. Thereafter the petitioners wanted to put up an industrial unit, for which occupancy certificate was not issued. According to the Panchayath there is violation of Rule 59. The short question to be considered in the writ petition was whether the Panchayath can be called upon to grant such an occupancy certificate when apparently there was a violation for conducting an industrial unit. This fact had been considered and decided. In respect of the proceedings of Single Window Clearance Board it is

¶35

R.P. NO. 198 OF 2013

¶36

¶37

seen deferred as per Ext. P10 and related to the grant of license. The question of grant of license arises only after the building is numbered and occupancy certificate granted. Such a situation had not arisen in this case.

¶38

In that view of the matter, I do not think that any of the grounds raised in the Review Petition arise for consideration in the writ petition and the judgment relied upon by the petitioners does not apply to the factual circumstances involved in this case. Accordingly the review petition is dismissed.

¶39

Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE

¶40

DCS

J. Jayan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J. Jayan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar T. Vs Wayanad District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Dr.Prabha Rajan Vs Puliyoor Grama Panchayath

P.Antony Robert Vs Joint Registrar (General) of Co-Operative Societies

Shameer .S. Vs State of Kerala and Others

Emgi Krishnan Vs Believers Church English Medium School

S.Ponnappan Asari Vs the State Institute of Languages and Ors.