This Writ Petition was concerned with obstruction to the petitioner's construction based on a building permit. The High Court dismissed the petition because the Municipality, whose proceedings were relevant to the permit's expiry and renewal, was not impleaded as a party.
Petitioner was dismissed but was left liberty to file a fresh application
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 MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1941
WP(C). No.6752 of 2019
PETITIONER/S:
SAINUDHEEN, AGED 50 YEARS S/O.MOHAMMED HAJI, PUTHANANGADI HOUSE,
NATTUKAL P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SAKKEER HUSSAIN, S/O.HYDRU, AGED 42 YEARS, POOKKUTH HOUSE, PATTIKKAD P.O., KEEZHATTUR, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS
RESPONDENT/S:
BY SR.GP SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
The petitioner was aggrieved with the
obstruction caused to his construction. The petitioner had obtained a building permit, which is produced in this writ petition, which as of now has expired. The petitioner submits that he had filed an application for renewal, which is pending before the Municipality for more than 30 days. Hence there is a deemed permit, is the contention raised.
2. We do not see the Municipality in the party
array and hence we cannot permit the construction with the aid of the Police deeming the permit to have been issued.
In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to keep the writ petition pending, but we dismiss the writ petition leaving liberty to the petitioner. There is no order as to costs.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.
Sd/-
sp/26/07/19
V.G. ARUN, JUDGE. //True Copy// P.A. To Judge
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY IN W.P(C) COURT. |
OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.07.2015 NO.21896/2015 BY THE HONOURABLE |
|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE COPY PASSED BY |
OF THE ORDER DATED 18.02.2016 THE PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE COPY 14.03.2016 |
OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED . |
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY FILED BY RESPONDENT |
OF THE PETITION DATED 28.02.2019 THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND . |
| EXHIBIT P5 | TRUE COPY | OF THE RECEIPT DATED 23.02.2019. |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be permitted to remain pending or dismissed given the absence of the Municipality as a party before the Court.
Sainudheen
Superintendent of Police, Malappuram
The Sub Inspector of Police, Perinthalmanna
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Perinthalmanna
Democratic Youth Federation of India
K. Vinod Chandran
V.G. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
