IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30171 of 2009(N)
1. K.UMMER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
3. MANANTHAVADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
4. THE SECRETARY,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :10/02/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) Nos.30171 of 2009 (N)
1613 of&2010 (B)
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 10th day of February, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a joint owner of a shopping complex by name
Park View Tower situated within the area of the Mananthavady
Grama Panchayat.
2. According to the petitioner, he had initially submitted a
plan to the Panchayat for obtaining building permit indicating a
portion of the ground floor as the parking area. That plan,
according to him, was revised and that in the revised plan, the
parking area shown in the original plan was shown as rooms and
parking area was provided outside the building. The petitioner
submits that on the basis of the revised plan, building permit was
granted and he constructed the building fully in compliance with the
approved plan and the building permit.
3. It is also stated that thereafter many of the rooms in the
building were numbered and electricity connections were availed of.
Subsequently, the Panchayat issued a notice dated 23/09/2009 to
WP(C) Nos.30171/2009 & 1613/2010
-2-
the petitioner alleging that the parking area in the approved plan
was converted into rooms and that the petitioner should rectify the
same. It is stated that on receipt of the said notice, he submitted
his reply and that the Secretary of the Panchayat was satisfied that
there was no violation committed by him.
4. Despite that, the Sub Collector insisted that the
petitioner should convert the rooms in the ground floor into parking
area, and apprehending coercive action he filed WP(C)
No.30171/2009. While admitting the writ petition, this Court
passed interim order dated 23/10/2009 directing that status quo in
relation to the building shall be maintained.
5. While the above writ petition was pending, the petitioner
says that the Sub Divisional Magistrate issued letter dated
25/11/2009 informing the KSEB that in view of the aforesaid
violation already committed by the petitioner, unless those
violations are rectified, new power connection shall not be given.
On receipt of the said communication, the Assistant Engineer of the
KSEB issued letter dated 30/11/2009 requiring the petitioner to
produce necessary orders/clearances from the competent authority
WP(C) Nos.30171/2009 & 1613/2010
-3-
in order to enable them to process the application made by the
petitioner for electricity connection. It is in view of the said
development, he filed WP(C) No.1613/2010, along with his joint
owner.
6. On behalf of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the learned
Government Pleader has filed a statement. Going by the statement,
the construction undertaken by the petitioners is in departure from
the approved plan and the building permit. It is stated that the
Traffic Advisory Committee wanted to take action against
unauthorised occupants of parking places in the town, and that as
the petitioners were one such unauthorised occupants, action was
initiated against them.
7. Essentially therefore, the allegation against the
petitioners is that they have completed construction of their
building converting the parking area provided in the ground floor as
rooms, and this according to the official respondents is in violation
of the building permit and the approved plan.
8. On the other hand, the petitioners contend that the
permit was issued on the basis of the revised plan referred to above
WP(C) Nos.30171/2009 & 1613/2010
-4-
and the construction undertaken by them is fully in compliance with
the approved plan and the building permit. It is also to be noticed
that it is on the basis of this complaint made against the petitioners
that the whole proceedings were initiated.
9. Therefore, what is required to be ascertained is whether
the petitioners have undertaken construction of the commercial
building departing from the plan approved by the Panchayat and the
building permit issued by them. This is a matter for the Secretary of
the Panchayat to ascertain and on such examination, if the Secretary
finds that the building of the petitioners has been constructed fully
in compliance with the approved plan and the permit, there will not
be any occasion for any proceedings against the petitioners.
10. These writ petitions are therefore, disposed of with the
following directions:-
(1) The Secretary of the Mananthavady Grama Panchayat shall,
within seven days of production of a copy of this judgment, inspect
the petitioners’ commercial building, viz. Park View Tower, and
ascertain whether the parking area in the ground floor has been
completed in compliance with the approved plan and the building
WP(C) Nos.30171/2009 & 1613/2010
-5-
permit. On such examination, if he is satisfied that there is no
deviation from the approved plan and permit, he shall issue a
certificate to that effect to the petitioners. The certificate shall be
issued immediately thereafter.
(2) If a certificate has been issued as above, it will be open to the
petitioners to produce the same before the Assistant Engineer,
Electrical Section, Mananthavady, who shall thereupon process the
application made by the petitioners for electricity connection and
pass orders in the matter.
In the meanwhile, interim order of this Court dated
23/10/2009 passed in WP(C) No.30171/2009 will remain in force.
These writ petitions are disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg