IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29457 of 2008(F)
1. VARGHESE, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 52 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. YACOB, S/O. ULAHANNAN, AGED 71 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, KOTHAMANGALAM
3. C.P. MATHEW, S/O. PETER,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.SABU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :06/10/2008
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.29457 OF 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of October, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioners claim to be co-owners of 22.397 cents of
land in Kothamangalam Village along with the 3rd respondent. A
building has been constructed therein having ground floor and 1st
floor. The petitioners allege that the 3rd respondent obtained a
permit for constructing the 2nd floor of the building without the
junction of the petitioners as applicants. The petitioners’
contention is that in view of Rule 21 read with Rule 15A(11) of
the Kerala Building Rules, the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction
to issue the permit without the application for permit having been
signed by all the co-owners.
2. I am of opinion that this is a matter, which the
petitioners have to take in an appeal in accordance with the
provisions of the Kerala Municipalities Act. Therefore, I am not
inclined to entertain this writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners were not served with a copy of the decision of the
W.P.(c)No.29457/08 2
Municipality and therefore the petitioners had to obtain copy of
the same by resort to proceedings under the Right to
Information Act. The petitioners express an apprehension
that since the limitation period prescribed for filing an appeal
has already expired, the appellate authority may dismiss the
appeal on the ground of limitation.
4. It is settled law that the time taken for obtaining
copy of the impugned order has to be excluded for computing
the period of limitation. That being so, there is no basis for
the apprehension raised by the petitioners.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of without
prejudice to the right of the petitioners to file an appeal
against the impugned order.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
W.P.(c)No.29457/08 3