Disposed

Dr. N.K. Viswanathan v. Sugadhakumar

Kerala HC8 Dec 2023Con.Case(C)/956/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contempt petition was filed alleging defiance of previous contempt orders. The court held that adjudicating disputed factual issues regarding building rules applicability was inappropriate in contempt proceedings. It found the respondents had substantially complied with directions and closed the case.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings closed; no finding of contempt made.

Dr. N.K. Viswanathan Vs Sugadhakumar — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945

¶5

CON.CASE(C) NO. 956 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT WP(C) 16588/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONERS:

¶7

1DR. N.K. VISWANATHAN
AGED 79 YEARS
NADEPPALLY HOUSE, TRIPUNITHURA P.O,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
NOW RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 216B (12/343),
KOCHUKARIMBIL HOUSE, VANDIPETTA JUNCTION,
KOKAPPILLY P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 682305
2NOMITHA PRAVISH
AGED 37 YEARS
W/O. DR. PRAVISH,
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 216B (12/343),
KOCHUKARIMBIL HOUSE, VANDIPETTA JUNCTION,
KOKKAPPILLY P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682305

¶8

BY ADVS.
M.SANTHY
SANDRA K. SANJAY

¶9

RESPONDENT

¶10

SUGADHAKUMAR,
SECRETARY, TRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY,
OFFICE AT MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS, STATUE JUNCTION,
TRIPUNITHURA P.O, PIN – 682301

¶11

BY ADV K.S.ARUN KUMAR

¶12

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Con.Case(C)NO.956 Of 2023

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Dated this the 8^th day of December, 2023

¶17

W.P.(C) No.16588 of 2022 was disposed of by this Court

¶18

with the following directions:-

¶19

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 3 rd respondent-Municipality to consider Ext.P8 representation. Respondents 3 and 4 shall forward necessary documents and their comments to the 2nd respondent-Town Planning Officer, within a period of two weeks. The Town Planning Officer shall give his recommendation/report within a further period of four weeks. Respondents 3 and 4 shall take a final decision on the regularisation application submitted by the petitioner, within a further period of four weeks.

¶20

Alleging defiance of the directions of this Court, this Contempt of Court Case is filed.

¶21

Standing Counsel appearing for respondentSecretary to the Municipality submitted that the application was considered and certain defects were pointed out to the petitioners and the petitioners were required to cure the defects

¶22

and resubmit the application.

¶23

Con.Case(C)NO.956 Of 2023

¶24

Counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, would

¶25

submit that the defects pointed out by the Senior Town Planner are unsustainable. The 2^nd Floor of the building was constructed and completed in the year 1993 itself. The Ground Floor and 1^st Floor was numbered by the Municipality. Number was not assigned to the 2^nd Floor due to certain other technical reasons. Having completed the building in the year 1993, the Municipality cannot insist compliance of Building Rules, 1999 or 2019. It amounts to gross contempt of the directions of this Court, contended the counsel for the petitioner.

¶26

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent.

¶27

The direction of this Court was to consider Ext.P8 representation submitted by the petitioner. As the application was found to be defective by the respondent, the same was returned. The issue is whether the defects pointed out by the senior Town Planner on the basis of the Kerala Municipality

¶28

Con.Case(C)NO.956 Of 2023

¶29

¶30

Building Rules, 1999 and Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019 are sustainable or not.

¶31

It is a settled legal position that if a Building Permit is obtained under an existing Rule and the construction is completed within the permitted period and the completion certificate is submitted, then the provisions of the new Rules or amendments cannot be made applicable to the building. No defects can be projected on that scope.

¶32

However in this case, whether the petitioner has completed the building construction and submitted the completion plan prior to the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 / Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019 is a matter, which has to be looked into by the competent authorities.

¶33

At any rate, the issue being a disputed question of fact, it will not be appropriate for this Court to make an adjudication on the issue in a contempt proceeding. I find that by processing the Building Permit application and pointing out

¶34

Con.Case(C)NO.956 Of 2023

¶35

¶36

certain short comings, the respondents have substantially

¶37

complied with the directions of this Court.

¶38

The Contempt of Court Case is therefore closed. The petitioners will be at liberty to approach the respondent to pursue their case.

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

hmh

Con.Case(C)NO.956 Of 2023

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 956/2023

¶45

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶46

Annexure A1THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED
20.06.2022 IN WPC NO. 16588/2022
Annexure A2THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 12.8.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONERS
Annexure A3THE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT NO.
9741 DATED 12.8.2022
Annexure A4THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN RP
1085/2022 DATED 22.12.2022

Dr. N.K. Viswanathan v. Sugadhakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. N.K. Viswanathan v. Sugadhakumar

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

Ciciya Johnson @ Sruthy, Vs Sundaram Home Finance Ltd.

Ajimon L, Vs Icici Banklimited

Khader.T.K, Vs the Authorized Officer, Canara Bank, Vaniyamkulam Branch

Manoj K.M. Vs State Bank of India

Vijayan.M.S Vs Ms. D Dharmalashri, IAS

Kamalam @ Kamalamma Vs Debaprasad Sahoo