Disposed

Anu P.Rajan v. Adoor, Muncipality

Kerala HC19 Mar 2015WP(C)/4255/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged non-disposal of representation regarding occupancy certificate and layout approval. Court disposed petition without adjudicating merits, directing Secretary to consider representation and authorizing Municipality to consider future regularisation application.

What did the court decide?

Direction to second respondent to consider petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders expeditiously; liberty to consider regularisation application if filed.

Anu P.Rajan Vs Adoor, Muncipality — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/28TH PHALGUNA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 4255 of 2015 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ANU P.RAJAN, ZAZHARIAH COTTAGE, MOONNALAM, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

ADOOR, MUNCIPALITY MUNICIPAL OFFICE, ADOOR, REP BY ITS SECRETARY-691 523.

¶11

SECRTARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR R2 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADERSMT.K.A.SANJEETHA

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

APPENDIX IN WP(C).No. 4255 of 2015 (F)

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶17

EXT. P1:-A COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 1/3/2013 BEARING B.A 411/12-13 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT

¶18

EXT.P1A:- ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P1

¶19

EXT. P2:-A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18/4/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIOER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶20

EXT.P2A:- ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P2

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.

¶22

/TRUE COPY/

¶23

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶24

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

¶25

W.P.(C)No.4255 of 2015 F

¶26

Dated this the 19^th day of March, 2015

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 2 and 3, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself.

¶29

Briefly stated, the petitioner having constructed a building, evidently without prior permission, applied to the first respondent Municipality for occupancy certificate. Through Exhibit P1 the respondent Municipality insisted on the petitioner's producing the layout approval from the third respondent. Under these circumstances, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P2 representation on 18.04.2013 before the second respondent. Complaining of non-disposal of the

¶30

WPC 4255/15

¶31

¶32

said representation by the second respondent, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶33

The first respondent Municipality filed its counter affidavit and contested the case.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, pleaded that without adjudicating the issue on merits, this Court may dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider Exhibit P2, apart from issuing another direction to the first respondent to consider regularisation based on the application to be filed by the petitioner. In justification of the said submission that the respondent Municipality has to consider the petitioner's application yet to be filed, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondent Municipality itself has gone on record in its counter affidavit that if the petitioner files an application for regularisation, it will be considered in accordance with law.

¶35

WPC 4255/15

¶36

¶37

Be that as it may, as has already been pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to adjudicate the issue on merits.

¶38

In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel and the learned Government Pleader, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider Exhibit P2 representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible. Further, if the petitioner files any application for regularisation, needless to observe, the respondent Municipality may consider that in accordance with law.

¶39

Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge

¶40

tkv

Anu P.Rajan v. Adoor, Muncipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anu P.Rajan v. Adoor, Muncipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Suresh Vs Sri.Antony Chacko

The Bishop Moore College Vs the State of Kerala

P.M.Saleema Vs Circle Inspector of Police

Ummer Koya.M Vs Ottapalam Municipality

K.K.Ummer Vs Vengola Grama Panchayat

N.K.Mohanan Vs the Kerala State Election Commission