IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21651 of 2008(C)
1. DEEPAK L. ASWANI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN,
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNING OFFICER,
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNAMTHANAM (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :14/08/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-----------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.21651/2008
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of August, 2008
JUDGMENT
The prayer in this writ petition is against respondents 3
and 4 to provide service connections to the Villas, the
construction of which was completed by the petitioner.
There is a further prayer for a direction against respondents
1 and 2 not to interfere with the petitioner or their
successors in interest in the use and occupation of the
Villas.
2. It would appear that 23 Villas were constructed by
the petitioner on the strength of Exts.P7 and P8 building
permits issued by the respondent Corporation. In order to
get service connection from respondents 3 and 4, petitioner
needs occupancy certificates from the Corporation of
Cochin. Since, occupancy certificate was not issued,
WP(c).No.21651/2008 2
respondents 3 and 4 were not giving service connection and
that lead the petitioner to file this writ petition. Therefore,
what arise for consideration in this writ petition is whether
the Corporation should issue an occupancy certificate as
prayed for by the petitioner in Ext.P13.
3. In the statement filed by the Corporation, it has
been stated that, it issued Ext.P9 stop memo dated
7.2.2007 and that ignoring the same, the petitioner
continued the construction and completed the same only on
8.5.2008. Yet another reason stated by the Corporation is
that the Chief Town Planner has taken objection against
the lay out approval that was granted by the Corporation.
4. On facts it is seen that the date of completion viz
8.5.2008 now relied on by the Corporation is the date on
which the petitioner submitted Ext.P13 and similar other
formal applications for occupancy certificates. However, no
materials, whatsoever has been placed on record to indicate
that this was the date on which the petitioner had
WP(c).No.21651/2008 3
completed the construction. According to the petitioner the
building in question were completed much prior to Ext.P9.
Therefore, I am not in a position to accept the reason now
projected by the Corporation and conclude that despite the
stop memo the petitioner proceeded the construction.
5. In so far as the lay out approval is concerned, the
fact remains that an application was made by the petitioner
and that the lay out was approved by the Corporation as per
Ext.P3 dated 30.10.1995. It may be true that the Chief
Town Planner may have taken objection to what the
Corporation has done. But however so long as the petitioner
has made a proper application and the Corporation has
considered the same and granted its approval on the basis
of which work also has been completed, the Corporation
cannot now be permitted to go back from such approval.
6. In my view, the petitioner is entitled to assert its
entitlement based on the layout approval granted by the
Corporation.
WP(c).No.21651/2008 4
7. Yet another reason stated by the Corporation is that
the validity of the permit has expired on 28.3.2008 and that
the conclusion was completed much later. Here again the
Corporation is banking on the date of Ext.P13, which can
be of no significance. Therefore all the three reasons
stated by the Corporation for refusal of occupancy
certificate applied for by the petitioner cannot be accepted.
8. According to the writ petition is disposed of
directing the corporation to issue occupancy certificate as
applied for by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible
and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production
of a copy of the judgment.
The Electricity Board and Kerala Water Authority are
refusing to provide service connection for the only reason
that the occupancy certificate has not been produced by the
petitioner. In view of the aforesaid direction it is further
directed that once occupancy certificate is obtained and
WP(c).No.21651/2008 5
produced before respondents 3 and 4, they shall take
necessary action on the request made by the petitioner.
ANTONY DOMINIC,
JUDGE
vi