Disposed

Ravi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Nov 2019WP(C)/10411/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged Municipal Corporation's stop order on shed construction citing CRZ violations. Court directed petitioner to furnish pending information within two weeks. Corporation mandated to forward info to KCZMA and obtain permission within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directing petitioner to furnish information within two weeks; Corporation to forward to KCZMA and obtain permission within two months.

Ravi Vs State of Kerala — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.10411 OF 2019(B)

PETITIONER:

RAVI

AGED 57 YEARS

S/O. BHARATHAN, EVERGREEN, LAKE DHARSHAN NAGAR, VADAKKUMBHAGOM, KOLLAM - 691 001

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 01.

¶13

2 KOLLAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KOLLAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM - 691 001

¶14

3 SECRETARY KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, PALLIMUKKU, PETTA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 01

¶15

R2 BY SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS,SC,KOLLAM MPT

¶16

GP POOJA SURENDRAN; SC FOR R3 M.P.PRAKASH

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No.10411 OF 2019 2

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner has approached this

¶21

Court assailing the action of Kollam Municipal Corporation stopping him from making a temporary shed, which he says is only an adjunct to his existing residential building constructed more than two decades ago.

¶22

According to the petitioner, when

¶23

the Municipal Corporation directed him to stop the construction, he made an application before them seeking permission to do so, but that the Corporation has not taken any action thereon until now. He, therefore, prays that the Secretary of the 2^nd respondent-Corporation be directed to grant him permission to continue with the construction forthwith.

¶24

The learned Standing Counsel for

¶25

Kollam Municipal Corporation - Shri.M.K. Chandramohan Das, submits that a statement,

¶26

WP(C).No.10411 OF 2019 3

¶27

dated 12/07/2019, has been filed on record on behalf of his client, wherein the following have been stated:-

¶28

“2. It is submitted that a spot inspection was conducted based on a message received over phone call on 10/01/2019 and a stop memo was issued after it was found that the petitioner herein was constructing a temporary shed admeasuring 7.80X7.00 meters. Stop memo was issued as the construction was in violation of CRZ norms. The petitioner herein subsequently applied for building permit on 20/01/2017.

¶29

Permission from the KCZMA (Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority) is necessary for the said construction as the area comes under Coastal Regulatory Zone. A notice dated 14.02.2017 was issued to the petitioner, requiring him to produce an application along with plan and village sketch with defined boundaries to be forwarded to the KCZMA. The said documents we furnished by the petitioner on 27/03/2017.

¶30

The above-mentioned documents were forwarded to the KCZMA on 05/06/2017. A letter dated 03/11/2018 was also sent to the KCZMA in reply to their letter seeking additional details. The Hon'ble Ombudsman, during his hearing on 05/12/2018 had informed this respondent to issue a note to the KCZMA within 10 days and had ordered on 13/12/2018. A letter was received on 24/01/2019 from the KCZMA seeking more information and the same was intimated to the petitioner on 25/02/2019, however no reply has been received from the petitioner till date.

¶31

It is submitted that inputs will be forwarded to the KCZMA once received from the petitioner and the permit will be granted once the KCZMA accords permission.”

¶32

WP(C).No.10411 OF 2019 4

¶33

The learned Standing Counsel submits that as soon as the petitioner

¶34

furnishes necessary information to the Corporation, they will forward the same to

¶35

the 3^rd respondent-Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority (KCZMA), so that their concurrence can be then be obtained.

¶36

Shri.M.P.Prakash, learned Standing

¶37

Counsel for the 3^rd respondent-KCZMA, submits that it is true that the

¶38

application of the petitioner was forwarded to them by the Corporation, but that it was

¶39

returned seeking certain further information. The learned Standing Counsel says that the Corporation is yet to respond

¶40

with the relevant information and

¶41

therefore, that the KCZMA has not been able

¶42

to take a final decision in this matter.

¶43

submissions, it is obvious that the stand of the Corporation is that even though they

¶44

WP(C).No.10411 OF 2019 5

¶45

have forwarded the petitioner's application

¶46

to the KCZMA, the said Authority returned the same to them, seeking certain information; which, the Corporation then asked the petitioner to furnish. According to them, the petitioner is yet to respond to their letter, dated 25/02/2019, issued for this purpose and therefore, that no further action has been taken on his application.

¶47

submissions, it is obvious that the ball is

¶48

now in the court of the petitioner, since

¶49

he will have to furnish necessary

¶50

information as was required of him, through the letter of the Corporation dated 25/02/2019; and hence he cannot blame them for his application not being disposed of finally.

¶51

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the petitioner to furnish all

¶52

WP(C).No.10411 OF 2019 6

¶53

the information sought for by the Corporation through their letter, dated 25/02/2019, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; in which event, the Corporation will forward the same to the KCZMA, so as to enable the said Authority to take a final decision in terms of law, which shall be done by them not later than two months after the information, as sought for is furnished to them by the Corporation.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶56

JUDGE

¶57

MC/12.11.19

¶58

WP(C).No.10411 OF 2019 7

¶59

APPENDIX

¶60

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶61

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE SAID PROPERTY

¶62

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH WAS PENDING BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT DATED 17/01/2018

¶63

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON SUBMITTING THE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT

¶64

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶65

NIL

¶66

¶67

(TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE

Ravi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi 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

M.a.Anees Vs Karumaloor Grama Panchayath, Represented by Its Secretary

Indian Pentecostal Church Vs the State of Kerala

K.Moudammal Vs Alfas

Mammudu.a Vs the Malappuram Municipality

Sarada, Vs the Mathoor Grama Panchayat

Hamza Vs the Secretary