Kunnumpurath Muhammed Hashim vs The Secretary on 9 April, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 12151 of 2008(V)


1. KUNNUMPURATH MUHAMMED HASHIM,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SECRETARY,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :09/04/2008

 O R D E R
                        PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
                    ----------------------------------
                     W.P.(C) NO. 12151 of 2008
                    ----------------------------------
               Dated this the 9th      day of April , 2008

                               JUDGMENT

In this writ petition under Article 226 the petitioner seeks a

direction to the respondent Panchayat to consider Ext.P3 application

and take a decision within a specified period. The petitioner’s

grievance is that the permit, which was sought for from the Panchayat

for repair and maintenance of an existing building, was declined by

the Panchayat on the basis of Ext.P2 letter which was sent to the

Panchayat by the Executive Engineer, PWD, National Highway Division,

Kannur. In Ext.P2, the Executive Engineer has informed the Panchayat

that constructions on plots abutting National Highway should leave a

set back of five meters from the boundary of the plots to the line of

the construction. The case of the petitioner is that what he wants, is to

repair and renovate an existing building and he has no intention at

all to shift the location of the building or to change its plinth area.

For repair and maintenance of an existing building without shifting the

location or changing the plinth area, it is not necessary to adhere

toRrule, if any, that 5 meters wide space should be left out by the

WPC No.12115/2008 2

petitioner from the road margin.

2. I do not propose to go into the merits of the matter. But it is

seen that the Panchayat has not correctly appreciated the position

that permission sought for by the petitioner is not for making any

new construction but only for repairing and renovating an existing

construction without shifting the location and without increasing plinth

area in any manner. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 before the

Panchayat seeking review of Ext.P2.

3. I dispose of this writ petition directing the first respondent to

consider Ext.P3 in the light of the various grounds raised in this writ

petition, hear the petitioner and take a correct and just decision. While

taking decision, the Panchayat should have due regard to the fact that

the petitioner’s request is only to renovate the existing building

without shifting its location and without increasing the plinth area. In

the event of issuing permit, the Panchayat will ensure that the

position of the building is neither shifted nor is its plinth area

increased.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
dpk

WPC No.12115/2008 3