Allowed

Faizal K. H. v. the Corporation of Cochin

Kerala HC16 Nov 2020WP(C)/21828/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a communication rejecting a building permit application for violating principles of natural justice by denying an opportunity of hearing. The Court directed the competent authority to consider the petition afresh. Local housing law cited.

What did the court decide?

The impugned communication rejecting the permit was set aside. The respondent Corporation was directed to consider the application afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing within one month.

Faizal K. H. Vs the Corporation of Cochin — Kerala HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.21828 OF 2020(C)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

FAIZAL K. H. AGED 31 YEARS S/O. HUSSAIN K. M., KASARTHI HOUSE, ST. FRANCIS ROAD, KATHRIKADAVU, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM - 682 017, NOW RESIDING AT HASEENA MANZIL, JANAKEEYA ROAD II, SWAMYPADI.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY SRI.ANIL GEORGE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM - 682 011.

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM - 682 011.

¶12

3 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER EDAPPALLY ZONAL OFFICE, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY ADV.SRI.C S. SUDHEESH KUMAR

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.21828 OF 2020(C)

¶16

¶17

W.P.(C) No.21828 of 2020

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

The petitioner preferred an application before the first respondent Corporation for building permit. The application has been rejected in terms of Ext.P6 communication stating that the petitioner has not provided sufficient open space for the building in the plan submitted along with the application. The petitioner disputes the said statement in Ext.P6 communication and challenges the same on that ground in this proceedings.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent.

¶21

At the time of hearing, it was conceded by the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent Corporation that Ext.P6 communication was issued without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

¶22

In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to set aside Ext.P6 communication and direct the competent authority of the Corporation to consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner afresh, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of

¶23

WP(C).No.21828 OF 2020(C)

¶24

¶25

hearing. This shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE

WP(C).No.21828 OF 2020(C)

¶31

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶34

EXHIBIT	P1	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED NO.3327/2019.
EXHIBIT	P2	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT	P3	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 11.11.2019.
EXHIBIT	P4	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27.12.2019.
EXHIBIT	P5	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT OF APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT DT. 30.01.2020..
EXHIBIT	P6	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P7 & P7(a)	PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING ADJACENT TO THE DRAINAGE.

¶35

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Faizal K. H. v. the Corporation of Cochin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faizal K. H. v. the Corporation of Cochin

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

Abraham Vs Station Election Commission

Toby Devassy Vs State Election Commission

Johny Mathew Vs State Election Commission

Gopalakrishnan Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Joseph Antony Vs Changanassery Municipality

Sureshbabu.v.P. Vs Irinjalakkuda Municipality