Disposed

Safe Homes Developers Private Limited v. Kannur Muncipal Corporation

Kerala HC20 Feb 2019WP(C)/3193/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam held that the pendency of the writ petition legally disabled the respondent corporation from considering renewal applications within the statutory nine-year period. The Court directed the Secretary to finalize the applications within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Director the Secretary of the Municipal Corporation to finalize the renewal applications (Exts.P15 and P16) within six weeks.

Safe Homes Developers Private Limited Vs Kannur Muncipal… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 3193 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 SAFE HOMES DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MT VIII/402 F,MIS BUILDING,P.O.THANA, KANNUR-670012, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR K.SADANANDAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.LATE KORAGAN,RESIDNG AT SADGURU NILAYAM,BATTAMBARA, KASARAGOD.

¶8

2 K.SADANANDAN, AGED 54 YEARS S/O.LATE KORAGAN,PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR, M/S.SAFE HOMES DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MT VIII/402 F,MIS BUILDING,P.O.THANA,KANNUR-670012. BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.) SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA SRI.BALU TOM

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 KANNUR MUNCIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KANNUR-679335.

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY, KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,KANNUR-679335.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.) SMT.NAMITHA NAMBIAR SMT.S.AMBILY SMT.VANIAH MARIA DOMINIC SRI.SAJI THOMAS

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 3193 of 2019 2

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act,

¶17

1956, seeking the following directions.

¶18

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing or compelling the respondents to renew the permit of the building granted to the petitioner as per Ext.P17 for a period of 3 years from 2014-2017 and from 2017 to 2020 as per Ext.P18.

¶19

ii) To grant such other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under these circumstances.”

¶20

The grievance of the petitioners is that, a building permit was secured by the petitioners, which was a subject matter of consideration before this court and finally culminated in Ext.P14 judgment dated 03.08.2018. The said writ petition was pending before this court from the year 2013. During the pendency of this writ petition, Exts.P15 and 16 applications were submitted by the petitioners for renewal of the building permit, since the permit granted has expired.

¶21

Now, the situation is that, nine years period

¶22

WP(C).No. 3193 of 2019 3

¶23

as is prescribed under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, is over. According to learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the pendency of this writ petition before this court for a period of five years disabled the statutory authority to consider the said applications and therefore, seeks appropriate directions.

¶24

I have heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

¶25

Admittedly, the writ petition was pending before this court, consequent to which, Exts.P15 and P16 applications could not be considered by the Secretary of the Municipal Corporation. The writ petition was disposed of on 03.08.2018. By the time, the period of nine years was over. Therefore, it can be seen that, when ultimately the writ petition of the petitioners was allowed, the pendency of the same stands as a legal impediment for considering the applications for renewal of the permit. In my considered opinion, the issue has occurred consequent to the long pendency of the writ petition before this court

¶26

WP(C).No. 3193 of 2019 4

¶27

and the act of the court shall not prejudice the rights of the petitioner.

¶28

In that view of the matter, and in the interest of justice, I think it is only appropriate that the Municipal Corporation is directed to consider Exts.P15 and P16 applications in accordance with law, within a time frame.

¶29

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the Secretary of the Municipal Corporation to finalize Exts.P15 and P16 applications, taking into account, the

¶30

observations contained above and de hors the

¶31

prohibition of the maximum period of nine years under the Rules 1999, at the earliest possible and at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶32

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

uu 20.02.2019

WP(C).No. 3193 of 2019 5

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT P1	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF BY THE RESPONDENT	THE PERMIT ISSUED DATED 31.3.2011
EXHIBIT P2	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF TRANSFERRED IN FA PETITIONER DATED	THE PERMIT VOURT OF THE 29.3.2012.
EXHIBIT P3	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF ISSUED BY THE RES 28.11.2011.	THE STOP MEMO PONDENT DATED
EXHIBIT P4	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF BY THE RESPONDENT	THE ORDER ISSUED DATED 17.3.2012.
EXHIBIT P5	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF ISSUED BY THE RES 21.4.2012.	THE STOP MEMO PONDENT DATED
EXHIBIT P6	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF BY THE RESPONDENT	THE ORDER ISSUED DATED 6.10.2012.
EXHIBIT P7	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF NO.E3/13467/11 IS RESPONDENT DATED	THE NOTICE SUED BY THE 17.10.2012.
EXHIBIT P8	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF CERTFICATE DATED	THE NO OBJECTION 2.8.2008.
EXHIBIT P9	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF BY THE RESPONDENT	THE NOTICE ISSUED DATED 3.4.2012
EXHIBIT P10	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE MUNICIPALITY	THE REPLY GIVEN BY DATED 8.3.2013
EXHIBIT P11	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PETITIONER DA	THE REPLY GIVEN BY TED 19.9.2012.
EXHIBIT P12	PHOTOCOPY OF THE 25537/2012 DATED	JUDGMENT IN WPC 11.03.2013
EXHIBIT P13	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF BY THE MUNICIPALI	THE NOTICE ISSUED TY DATED 4.4.2013
EXHIBIT P14	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF WPC 10061/13 DATE	THE JUDGMENT IN D 03.08.2018.
EXHIBIT P15	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF FOR RENEWAL OF PE 02.05.2014 TO THE	THE APPLICATION RMIT DATED RESPONDENT.

¶41

WP(C).No. 3193 of 2019 6

¶42

EXHIBIT P16 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF PERMIT DATED 05.06.2017 TO THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P17 PHOTOSTATCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE MUNICIPALITY DATED 24.09.2018. EXHIBIT P18 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09.01.2019.

¶43

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL

¶44

//TRUE COPY//

¶45

P.A. TO JUDGE

Safe Homes Developers Private Limited v. Kannur Muncipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Safe Homes Developers Private Limited v. Kannur Muncipal Corporation

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

Santhosh.M Vs Bharathan

Ajeesh N, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

N.P.Selvaraj Vs State of Kerala

Joe Rodrigues Vs Mohammed Y. Safirulla

Raja and Rajas Saw Mill and Timbers (P) Ltd., Vs Irinjalakuda Municipality

Malabar Agricultural and General Marketing Co-Operative Society Ltd, Vs the State of Kerala