IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16013 of 2008(F)
1. VISWALEKSHMYAMMA B.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
... Respondent
2. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER,
3. THE BUILDING INSPECTOR,
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
6. SYRIL.Y., MINI NIVAS,
7. MINI, W/O.SYRIL.Y., MINI NIVAS,
For Petitioner :SRI.KKM.SHERIF
For Respondent :SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :07/07/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NO. 16013 OF 2008 F
====================
Dated this the 7th day of July, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The allegation in this writ petition is that respondents 6 and 7 are
making constructions without a permit issued by the respondent
Corporation as contemplated under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules,
1999. According to the petitioner, the construction so undertaken is even
ignoring a stop memo issued by the Corporation. Counsel for the
Corporation submits that noticing the construction undertaken by
respondents 6 and 7, they have issued a stop memo on 13/5/2008 and an
order under Section 406(1) on 31.5.2008. It is stated that thereafter
notice has been issued to respondents 6 and 7 and that considering their
reply to the notice, final orders will be passed. Though counsel appearing
for respondents 6 and 7 seeks to justify the construction that they have
commenced, he also accepts the fact that order under Section 406(1) has
been issued by the Corporation on 31/5/2008. In view of the factual
position as above, what is required to be done is that the Corporation
should take a final decision in this matter in pursuance to the preliminary
order dated 31/5/2008.
WPC 16013/08
:2 :
2. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the
Corporation shall take a final decision in pursuance to the preliminary
order dated 31/5/2008 with notice to respondents 6 and 7 and taking into
account the contentions raised by them. This shall be done, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of receipt of a copy of
this judgment.
Counsel for the petitioner complains that despite the stop memo and
the preliminary order, respondents 6 and 7 are still continuing
construction. This certainly is a matter for the Corporation to take note
and if there is any substance in what is complained of by the petitioner,
appropriate remedial action shall be taken by the Corporation.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp