Disposed

Vincent v. Corporation of Cochin and Another

Kerala HC16 Nov 2022WP(C)/3875/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

After noting an 11-year interim stay ordered in 2011 regarding building violations, the High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition by recording the existing order. The court allowed the first respondent to proceed against the petitioner by issuing a fresh notice if any violations are found.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of by recording the interim order already granted for more than ten years, allowing the first respondent to proceed after issuing a fresh notice.

Vincent Vs Corporation of Cochin and Another — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 3875 OF 2011

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

VINCENT THYPARAMBIL HOUSE, RESIDING AT A2,, HIGHWAY GARDEN APARTMENT, PONNURUNNI DESOM,, POONITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK.

¶7

BY ADV SRI.M.M.ALIAS

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

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

¶10

2 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER EAST ZONAL OFFICE, CORPORATION OF COCHIN,, VYTTILA682 019.

¶11

3 THE SENIOR TOWN PLANNER VIGILANCE GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶12

4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SMT.K.G.SAROJINI, GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶16

16.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) NO. 3875 of 2011 2

¶18

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶19

W.P.(C) No.3875 of 2011

¶20

Dated this the 16^th day of November, 2022

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The writ petition is filed with following prayers:-

¶23

I) “issue a writ or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of certiorari to calling for the records leading to the issuance of Exts.P4 and P5 and quash the same and all proceedings in the matter against the petitioner, which is pending before the respondents.

¶24

II) Issue a writ of madamus or other appropriate writs, directions or orders directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to allow the petitioner to complete the construction of the building in accordance with the approved Plan and permit

¶25

III) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs, directions or orders directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to pass any final order on Explanation dated 11.12.2010 submitted by the petitioner

¶26

WP(C) NO. 3875 of 2011 3

¶27

IV) grant such other interim orders requested for by the petitioner and which this Hounorable Court may deem fit and proper end.

¶28

V) allow the writ petition with costs.” [SIC]

¶29

This writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P4 and P5. The petitioner obtained a building permit and based on the same, he was constructing a three storied building. At that stage, the 1^st respondent issued Ext.P5 notice stating that the petitioner is proceeding with the construction of the building in Survey No.447/14 without obtaining prior permission, and the petitioner was directed to stop the work forthwith. It is the case of the petitioner that, the allegation in the notice is not correct. At that stage this writ petition is filed.

¶30

When this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court stayed all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 for a period of three months on 29.08.2011. The interim order was regularly extended. On 31.05.2012, interim order was extended until further orders on condition that the construction would be at the risk of the

¶31

WP(C) NO. 3875 of 2011 4

¶32

petitioner and if ultimately the writ petition is dismissed the petitioner will demolish the building itself. Probably, the construction might have been completed long back.

¶33

There is no representation for the petitioner.

¶34

There is an interim order in favour of the

¶35

petitioner for more than ten years. If there is any violation of the building rules or if there is any other violation from the part of the petitioner in constructing the building, the 1^st respondent is free to proceed in accordance with law, after issuing fresh notice to the petitioner. This writ petition can be closed recording the interim order already granted.

¶36

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of recording the interim order already passed and allowing the 1^st respondent to proceed against the petitioner, after issuing fresh notice, if there is any violation in the construction.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶39

¶40

WP(C) NO. 3875 of 2011 5

¶41

		APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3875/2011
PETITION	ER	EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT	P1	PHOTOSTAT OF THE SALE DEED BEARING BO.6414/2004 OF SRO ERNAKULAM
EXHIBIT	P2	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PLAN APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN
EXHIBIT	P3	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT BEARING NO.KRP1-389/2009, DATED 28.10.2009
EXHIBIT	P4	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 06.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P5	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 06.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN TO THE PETITIONER TO STOP THE WORK.
EXHIBIT	P6	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 11.12.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P7	TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE DATED 20.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Vincent v. Corporation of Cochin and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vincent v. Corporation of Cochin and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jolly Sunny Vs Tribunal for Local Self Government

Seethunath Vs K.S.E.B.

The Farming Corporation Employees' Welfare Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Jayachandran Vs M.R.Binu

Koyyodan Damodaran Vs the District Collector, Kannur and Anoth

Jalaja.K.K Vs State of Kerala and Others