IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 5734 of 2010(N)
1. PARAVUR TOWN MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION,
... Petitioner
2. PARAVUR TALUK MERCHANTS WELFARE SOCIETY,
Vs
1. THE MUNICIPALITY OF PARAVUR,REPRESENTED
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY
For Respondent :SRI.T.A.SHAJI,SC,PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :08/06/2010
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C). No.5734/2010-N
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 8th day of June, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the stop memo
issued by the Secretary of first respondent-Municipality as
per Ext.P9.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
learned counsel appearing for the Municipality, the learned
counsel appearing for the additional third respondent and
the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the
additional second respondent.
3. The petitioners herein are two organisations
formed by the Merchants of the Paravur Town and Paravur
Taluk. They decided to have a shopping complex-cum-
auditorium and, accordingly, they entered into an agreement
for sale with one Shri Mohandas, the additional third
respondent herein for purchase of 16.665 cents of property.
The possession of the property is stated to have been
handed over in pursuance to the agreement for sale. An
application was submitted for a building permit along with
the necessary plans. Ext.P1 is the copy of the building
permit issued for the construction of 3 storied building
consisting of a shopping complex and an auditorium. Ext.P2
is the copy of the Non Objection Certificate issued by
W.P.(C). No.5734/2010
-:2:-
Commandant General Fire Services, Thiruvananthapuram. The
inauguration of the building was held on 14/11/2002. It is
submitted that the construction has been made in strict
compliance with the approved plans and the rooms have been
assigned to various shop owners and tenants.
4. Subsequently, a dispute arose with the additional
third respondent which led to the petitioners filing a suit
as O.S.No.183/2006 before the Sub Court, North Paravur
seeking for specific performance of the agreement and
Ext.P4 is the copy of the Judgment in the said suit. It is
also mentioned that the additional third respondent has
subsequently filed an application to the set aside the ex
parte decree along with a petition to condone the delay.
The matter is pending before the Sub Court.
5. Later, the petitioners applied for a building
permit to construct residential flats above the existing
shopping complex. The petitioners agreed to produce the
Fire NOC and, after verifying various aspects, the first
respondent issued the building permit as per Ext.P5.
Thereafter, the application for Fire NOC was also submitted
and, while the petitioners were continuing with the
construction and had completed nearly, 90% of the
construction, Ext.P9 stop memo has been issued.
W.P.(C). No.5734/2010
-:3:-
6. Ext.P9 is issued mainly for non production of Fire
NOC. The other reason pointed out therein is that there is
some ambiguity while examining the documents produced
evidencing the right of possession. Along with
I.A.No.4521/2010, the petitioner has produced Ext.P16
certificate issued from the Office of the Fire and Rescue
Services granting NOC. Therefore, according to the
petitioners, the said question no longer arises. It is
submitted that possession of 16.665 cents cannot be
disputed and the suit stands decreed also. Further the
said area is the car parking area for the building already
constructed.
7. The first respondent-Municipality as well as the
additional third respondent have filed separate counter
affidavits.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the attempt of the Municipality is to unsettle the
entire thing without any proper reasons and, therefore, the
action is really mala fide.
9. The learned counsel for the Municipality submitted
that they have only issued a stop memo in the matter to
verify certain aspects which is perfectly justified under
the Rules and the stop memo Ext.P9 is not a final order
passed by the Secretary of the Municipality. In the course
W.P.(C). No.5734/2010
-:4:-
of the construction of the building, to seek certain
clarifications, such a stop memo had been issued. There
are various subsequent events pointed out by the learned
counsel for the Municipality, which according to him will
justify the stand taken by them.
10. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioners that the petitioners are not proceeding
with the construction of the dining hall. It is also
further submitted that with regard to the plot, namely,
16.665 cents, involved in the civil suit, the petitioners
will not be making any constructions. It is further
submitted that the parking area for the residential complex
is shown separately as a plot which lies north of the
existing compound and the extend of the property is 10
cents and above.
11. The additional second respondent also has filed a
counter affidavit. The learned counsel for the said
respondent addressed arguments on the issues involved.
12. The learned counsel for the Municipality submitted
that if there are defects in the proceedings under the
Rules, the Secretary is empowered to even cancel the permit
and it is also submitted that such an action is in
contemplation.
W.P.(C). No.5734/2010
-:5:-
13. Ext.P9 is only a stop memo and is not a final
order in the proceedings. Since the Secretary has not
passed any final order in the matter, it is open to the
petitioners to submit appropriate statement/objections
along with the documents relied upon immediately and the
Secretary will thereafter hear the parties and take a final
decision within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
ms