S.Jayanarayanan vs The Corporation Of Caliucut-Rep. … on 31 March, 2009

0
25
Kerala High Court
S.Jayanarayanan vs The Corporation Of Caliucut-Rep. … on 31 March, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 10468 of 2009(C)


1. S.JAYANARAYANAN, S/O.SANKARA NARAYANAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE CORPORATION OF CALIUCUT-REP. BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE HEALHTH INSPECTOR, CIRCLE-III,

                For Petitioner  :SMT.T.RESMI DAMODARAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :31/03/2009

 O R D E R
                             S. Siri Jagan, J.
               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                     W. P (C) No. 10468 of 2009
               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                  Dated this, the 31st March, 2009.

                            J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is the owner of a three storeyed building in which

he is running a gas agency. Originally, the petitioner bought a

residential building and applied for renewal of the plan for

commercial building. That application was rejected and the building

was assessed as unauthorised construction and on that basis the

petitioner had been paying tax. Now the 2nd respondent has issued

Ext. P2 notice calling upon the petitioner to stop the business carried

on in the building on the ground that it is an unauthorised

construction. In the meanwhile, the petitioner also submitted Ext. P3

application before the 1st respondent for regularisation of the

construction as a commercial building and approving the plan

submitted for that purpose. The petitioner’s grievance is that the 2nd

respondent is proceeding further with Ext. P2 notice and at the same

time Ext. P3 application is also not being considered.

2. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the

respondents also.

3. I am of opinion that the 1st respondent should pass final

orders on Ext. P3 expeditiously and only after the same the 2nd

respondent shall proceed with Ext. P2 notice. Accordingly, the writ

petition is disposed of with the following directions:

The 1st respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext. P3

application submitted by the petitioner after affording an opportunity

of being heard to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any

W.P.C. No. 10468/09 -: 2 :-

rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. Ext. P2 notice shall be implemented only after the orders

are passed on Ext. P3 as directed above.

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

Tds/

[True copy]

P.S to Judge.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here