IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29609 of 2010(A)
1. SANGAMESWARAN KRISHNAN,
... Petitioner
2. VASANTHA KRISHNAN,
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. THE GURUVAYOOR MUNICIPALITY,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.A.AHAMMED
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :18/11/2010
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 29609 OF 2010
--------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of November, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners jointly own a parcel of land within the local
limits of Guruvayoor Municipality. They applied for a building permit
to put up a residential apartment complex in that land. Ext.P1
building permit was issued to the petitioners by the first respondent
after the plan submitted by them was approved. The petitioners
thereafter commenced and completed the construction. After the
construction was over, they submitted a completion certificate and
requested for numbering the building and to issue an occupancy
certificate. That application was rejected on the ground that the
road which provides access to the building has a width of only 12.14
metres, that there is a proposal to widen it to 18.25 metres and that
the building will not have the necessary set back after providing
space for widening the road. Ext.P2 is under challenge in this writ
petition.
2. The petitioners contend that as the construction is not in
deviation from the approved plan and as the Municipality had
approved the plan wherein the width of the road shown was only as
12.14 metres, the Municipality cannot be heard to contend that the
WPC No.29609/2010 2
construction is illegal. They also rely on the decision of a learned
single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.23818 of 2009 wherein in
identical circumstances in respect of a building situated adjacent to
the building put up by the petitioners it was held that if the building
permit has been issued and the plan approved, the Municipality
cannot decline to number the building or issue occupancy certificate
on the ground that the set back will be inadequate if the road is
widened.
3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit reiterating the
stand taken by them in Ext.P2. It is stated that due to an over sight
the plan was approved and that the proposal to widen the road from
12.14 metres to 18.25 metres was not noticed when the building
permit was issued and that Ext.P2 was issued to cure that omission.
4. I heard Sri.P.Ramachandran, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners and Sri. P.A.Ahammed, learned standing counsel
appearing for the respondents. I have also gone through the
pleadings and the materials placed on record. The respondents
have no case that the petitioners have put up a building in deviation
of the approved plan. The fact that in respect of the building lying
adjacent to the petitioners building a learned single Judge of this
WPC No.29609/2010 3
Court has by Ext.P4 judgment granted reliefs in identical
circumstances is also not in dispute. The respondents have no case
that the petitioners had furnished false information or that they were
guilty of suppressing any material fact. From the stand taken by the
respondents, it is clear that the omission, if any, is on their part in
failing to take note of the proposal to widen the road from 12.14
metres to 18.25 metres. In such circumstances, I hold, as held by
the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.23818 of 2009
that the respondents cannot be heard to contend that they will not
number the building or issue the occupancy certificate.
I accordingly allow the writ petition, quash Ext.P2 and direct the
respondents to reconsider the petitioners’ application for issuance of
occupancy certificate and for numbering the building without
reference to the reason stated in Ext.P2. Necessary steps in that
regard shall be taken and orders passed within two weeks from the
date on which the petitioners produce a certified copy of this
judgment before the first respondent.
P.N.RAVINDRAN,
(JUDGE)
vps
WPC No.29609/2010 4
WPC No.29609/2010 5