Appeal against single judge order directing appellants to seek regularization of unpermitted construction under Rule 143 of Kerala Municipality Building Rules. Court found order was maximum relief possible and dismissed the writ appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1939
WA.No. 630 of 2018 IN WPC. 14256/2012
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 14256/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 28-11-2017
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS
1 K.BALACHANDRAN, LAKSHMI MANDIRAM, ERAVU, THRISSSUR - 680 620.
2 C. INDIRA DEVI, W/O.K. BALACHANDRAN, LAKSHMI MANDIRAM, ERAVU, THRISSSUR - 680 620.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
SRI.S.M.PRASANTH
SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
SMT.R.S.ASWINI SANKAR
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC, C.J. &
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
W. A. No.630 of 2018
Dated this the 14th day of March, 2018
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, C.J.
The regularization of a construction made by the appellants without obtaining permit from the Corporation was the issue raised in the writ petition. By the judgment under appeal, the learned single Judge directed that the Secretary of the third respondent, will consider whether the building can be regularized in terms of Rule 143 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. It was also ordered
that subject to the appellants taking up the matter with the Secretary in appropriate manner within one month, till a decision is taken thereon, no coercive action shall be taken against the appellants. It is this judgment which is challenged before us.
W. A. No.630 of 2018
-2-
the learned Government Pleader and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent.
without obtaining permit. Now that construction has been completed, the only possible option available to the appellants is to get the same regularised in terms of Section 143 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. It is because of this that the learned single Judge has ordered that the appellants shall move the Secretary by filing an application within one month seeking regularisation. That direction issued by the learned single Judge with a further condition that, if such an application is made, coercive action shall be deferred until a final decision is taken thereon, is the maximum that the learned single Judge could have ordered in favour of the appellants. Such being the case, we do not see any reason why the appellants are aggrieved by
-3-
W. A. No.630 of 2018
the judgment under appeal.
Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE
kns/-
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the single judges order directing applications for regularization of construction under Rule 143 is legally sustainable?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
K. BALACHANDRAN
C. INDIRA DEVI
THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER
THE CORPORATION OF THRISSUR
STATE OF KERALA
ANTONY DOMINIC
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
