IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26999 of 2008(L)
1. KALATMAK RESIDENCY OWNERS ASSOCIATION,
... Petitioner
2. SATISH MURTHI, AGED 44 YEARS,
Vs
1. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
... Respondent
2. MATHER & MATHER (P) LTD., MATHER
3. M/S.EMPIRE BUILDERS, LALAN TOWER,
4. MR.B.V.PAUL, 6A, DEFENSE COLONY,
5. MRS.LOVELY PAUL, W/O.B.V.PAUL, 6A,
6. SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOCHI,
7. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
8. THE AIR AND WATER APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :05/09/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-----------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.26999/2008
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of September, 2008
JUDGMENT
Ext.P2 is a building permit that was obtained by
respondents 4 and 5 in respect of a plot of land which
belonged to them. It would appear from the pleadings that,
in 2006 respondents 2 and 3 purchased the land, in respect
of which the permit was granted. Thereupon, they applied
to the 6th respondent for transfer of Ext.P2 permit in their
favour and that was rejected by the 6th respondent as per
Ext.P1 order and following that a stop memo was also
issued to respondents 2 and 3. This led to the filing of the
two writ petitions before this court as WP(c).No.12567/2007
by the petitioners to get the work stopped in pursuance to
the stop memo and WP(c).No.20983/2007 by the
respondents 2 and 3 for quashing Ext.P1 order passed by
WP(c).No.26999/08 2
the 6th respondent. Interim orders were also passed in these
two cases. In WP(c).No.12567/2007, an order dated
13.4.2007 was passed permitting respondents 2 and 3 to
complete the work to the permissible level and in WP(c).
No.20983/07, Ext.P4 order was passed, staying Ext.P1 and
also directing that the Ext.P3 representation filed by the
petitioners for revocation of the permit be considered.
2. In pursuance to Ext.P4, Ext.P5 order was passed by
the 6th respondent, revoking the permit and also rejecting
the application made by respondents 2 and 3 for transfer of
the permit. Against Ext.P5, WP(c).No.30204/2007 was filed
by respondents 2 and 3, in which, again, Ext.P6 interim
order permitting them to do the interior work in relation to
the building, which was already constructed, was passed.
Finally, the aforesaid three cases were disposed of by Ext.P7
judgment, leaving it open to respondents 2 and 3 to file an
appeal before the first respondent against Ext.P5.
Accordingly respondents 2 and 3 filed appeal No.129/2008
and that resulted in Ext.P8 order of the Tribunal, which is
under challenge in this writ petition.
WP(c).No.26999/08 3
3. A reading of Ext.P8 shows that the Tribunal was
impressed by the contention of respondents 2 and 3 that
the revocation effected by Ext.P5 was without following the
procedure laid down in Rule 16 of the Kerala Municipality
Building Rules and therefore set aside Ext.P5, the impugned
order, with liberty to the Secretary of the Corporation to
initiate appropriate proceedings under Rule 16 of the Kerala
Municipality Rules “if there are any reasons for doing so”
and with a direction to the Secretary to pass appropriate
orders afresh on the applications submitted by the
respondents 2 and 3 for transfer of the permit as well. The
Tribunal passed such a composite order for the reason that
it was consequent on the revocation of the permit that the
application made by respondents 2 and 3 for transfer of the
permit was rejected.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that
their only concern is regarding the observation in Ext.P8
that fresh notice be issued, ”if there are any reasons for
doing so”. According to the counsel, this has the effect of
depriving the Secretary of the freedom to take fresh action,
WP(c).No.26999/08 4
which he is otherwise entitled. In my view, the aforesaid
observation of the Tribunal is inconsequential and even in
spite of it, if the secretary is satisfied that there are good
and substantial reasons, it is always open to the Secretary
to take action in the manner provided in the Rules.
Therefore, the apprehension is baseless. Having considered
the aforesaid submission and also having gone through
Ext.P8 order rendered by the first respondent Tribunal, I see
absolutely no justification for entertaining this writ petition.
Writ Petition fails and is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
vi.
WP(c).No.26999/08 5