Dismissed

Subash S.N. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Jun 2016WP(C)/7257/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a demand for 1.25% supervision charges to obtain a fitness certificate. The Court held that construction was approved by the local Engineer, implying supervision occurred. Petitioner must remit charges within one month to secure the certificate.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to remit 1.25% supervision charges within one month to secure fitness certificate.

Subash S.N. Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:-

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/7TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

W.P.(C).No.7257 of 2012 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):-

¶7

*** [R. RAJAGOPALAN ACHARI] SECRETARY, VISWADARSHINI, REGISTRATION NO.T.1254/2002, URIACODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 543.**

¶8

*** NAME OF THE PETITIONER IS CORRECTED AS 'SUBASH.S.N' AS PER ORDER DATED 31.05.2016 IN IA 6685/16.**

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR SRI.G.BIJU

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):-

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT SECTION, POOVACHAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 575.

¶13

3. THE SECRETARY,

¶14

POOVACHAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH (SPECIAL GRADE), POOVACHAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 575.

¶15

R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN. R2 & R3 BY ADVS. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP

¶16

SRI.P.BIJIMON.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶18

W.P.(C) NO.7257 OF 2012(F)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:-

¶21

EXHIBIT P1-	TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PLAN APPROVED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2-	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE PORTION EXTRACTED FROM EXHIBIT P1.
EXHIBIT P3-	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, P.W.D BUILDINGS SECTION, ARYANADU.
EXHIBIT P4-	TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY ASSISTANT ENGINEER, P.W.D BUILDINGS SECTION, ARYANADU AFTER HIS INSPECTION ON 29.9.2010.
EXHIBIT P5-	TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 4.8.2009.
EXHIBIT P6-	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO PRODUCE THE RECEIPT OF REMITTING 1.25% SUPERVISION CHARGE.
EXHIBIT P7-	TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.42448/EW3/11/L.S.D. DT.12.9.2011 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P8-	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN TO HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER DATED 7.11.2011 BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9-	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 5.3.2012.
EXHIBIT P10-	TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF THE OFFICE BEARERS OF THE SOCIETY ELECTED IN THE GENERAL BODY HELD ON 29.11.2015.

¶22

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-

¶23

----------------------NIL. Vku/[ true copy ]

¶24

K. Vinod Chandran, J

¶25

-------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.7257 of 2012-F

¶26

--------------------------------------Dated this the 28^th day of June, 2016

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The petitioner is aggrieved with the demand made at Exhibit P6 for supervision charges, of 1.25%. The petitioner's contention is that no supervision has been carried out as is indicated at Exhibit P7 and in such circumstance, the petitioner cannot be mulcted with such liability.

¶29

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the

¶30

learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat and the learned Government Pleader.

¶31

The petitioner approached this Court when the demand was raised and in that context, the fitness certificate was declined. This Court, by an interim order, directed that a fitness certificate be issued, but provisionally; without any claim raised of equity. The supervision charges for the purpose of issuing fitness certificate of Government/Aided/Un-aided schools is regulated by G.O.(Rt) No.1304/74/PWD dated 11.11.1974. The fitness certificates are issued by the officers of the Public Works

¶32

WP(C) No.7257 of 2012 - 2 -

¶33

Department attached to the respective Local Self Government Institutions (local body). They raised a grievance with respect to the issuance of such fitness certificates without their being participated in the process of construction at any stage. It was in such context, the Government came out with Exhibit P7, in the year 2011, directing the submission of plan, estimate, structural drawing, soil investigation details, etc. before the concerned Engineer and to carry on the construction with the supervision of the Engineers of the local bodies.

¶34

In fact, it is indicated in Exhibit P7 that the entire construction should be carried on only under the supervision of the Engineer of the local body. If the petitioner's contention is that the construction was not carried on under the supervision of the Engineer, the petitioner would not be entitled to the fitness certificate at all. The regulation, as brought out in Exhibit P7, was specifically due to the concern expressed by the Engineers of the local bodies, insofar as being forced to issue fitness certificates to the buildings; the plan or construction of which has not been

¶35

WP(C) No.7257 of 2012 - 3 -

¶36

whetted by them. The responsibility of any damage caused to the buildings, however, is on the officer who issued the fitness certificate. Hence, it is a definite mandate on the school and the Engineer; to construct under the supervision of the local bodies. No school can claim that they would be absolved from the liability to pay the fees on such supervision being not carried out; since the situation would entail denial of the fitness certificate itself. If the supervision is not carried out, it was incumbent upon the school constructing such a building to insist on the supervision, as has been directed in Exhibit P7.

¶37

The petitioner had completed construction and only

¶38

at the stage of fitness certificate, when the demand for supervision charges were made, the petitioner challenged the same on the ground that no such supervision was carried out. This has to be tested on the facts disclosed herein. The petitioners specific contention in the writ petition is that the construction of the building commenced in 2007 and the same was completed in 2009 (para 3 of the writ petition). This was long prior to Ext; P7, which is dated

¶39

WP(C) No.7257 of 2012 - 4 -

¶40

12.09.2011. Hence no reliance can be placed on the said government order. The petitioner also does not have any challenge against the G.O. Of 1974.

¶41

In any event, it is also admitted by the petitioner that

¶42

the plan was approved by the Engineer of the local body. The supervision charges also includes such activity carried on by the officers of the Government. In such circumstance, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit. The petitioner shall remit the supervision charges within a period of one month from today, failing which the provisional fitness certificate issued would be withdrawn. The respondent shall, on deposit of the said amounts, inspect the premises within two weeks and issue a fitness certificate, if the same is entitled to the building.

¶43

The writ petition would stand dismissed with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶44

Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶45

vku/-

¶46

[ true copy ]

Subash S.N. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subash S.N. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bright Line English Medium School Vs State of Kerala

Creccs Canteen Employees Union Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner(Centra

Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Limited Vs State of Kerala

Sugathakumari Vs Kottukal Grama Panchayath

S.Venkitaraman Vs Sivagiri President Welfare Society Ltd.

Kaipully Muhammed Alias Kunhapa Haji Vs District Officer, Pollution Control Board