Kerala High Court
Ambady Villa Owners'Association vs State Of Kerala on 7 June, 2012
Author: A.M.Shaffique
Bench: A.M.Shaffique
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/17TH JYAISHTA 1934
WP(C).No. 31473 of 2010 (H)
-----------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
------------------------
AMBADY VILLA OWNERS'ASSOCIATION
REGD.NO.E.R.688/04,AMBADY RETREAT, CHILAVANNUR ROAD
KADAVANTHRA PO,KOCHI 682 020
REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT RANJI PANICKER.
BY ADV. SRI.M. HARISHARMA
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA , REP.BYCHIEF SECRETARY.
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. CORPORATION OF KOCHI,REP.BY ITS
SECRETARY,CORPORATE OFFICE,ERNAKULAM
KOCHI 682011.
3. HEALTH OFFICER,CORPORATION OF KOCHI,
CORPORATE OFFICE,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682 011.
4. SUPERINTENDENT , REVENUE SECTION,
CORPORATIION OF KOCHI, VYTTILA ZONAL OFFICE
ERNAKULAM.682 019.
5. SUPERINTENDENT,TOWN PLANNING SECTION,
CORPORATION OF KOCHI,VYTTILA ZONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM
KOCHI 682 019.
6. AMBADY KRISHNA MENON, 28/1971/A,
AMBADY RETREAT,CHILAVANNUR ROAD,KADAVANTHARA PO
KOCHI-20.
tss
W.P.(C) NO.31473/2010
7. VIMALA MENON,28/1971/A, AMBADY RETREAT,
CHILAVANNUR ROAD, KADAVANTHRA PO, KOCHI-20.
BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR
BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY
BY SRI.S.RAMESH BABU, SC.COCHIN CORPN.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07-06-2012, ALONG WITH WPC. NO.18999 OF 2011 & WPC. NO.3606 OF 2012
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
tss
W.P.(C) NO.31473/2010
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
P1:- COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE HAVING NO.ER 688/04 DTD. 22.9.2004
ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES TO THE PETITIONER.
P2(a):- COPY OF THE SALE DEED DTD. 9.9.1994 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF MR.SEN
EAPAN HAVING REGN. 4551/1994 OF SRO, ERNAKULAM.
P2(b):- COPY OF THE SALE DEED DTD.26.6.1995 IN FAVOU OF MR.N.NARAYANAN NAIR
HAVING REGN. NO.335/1995 OF SRO, ERNAKULAM .
P3:- COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT GIVEN IN THE WEB SITE RELATING TO THE SAID
AMBADY'S PALM GROVE CLUB .
P4:- COPIES OF THE BILLS OBTAINED IN RESPECT OF 24 ROOMS IN THE AMBADY
RESORT.
P5:- COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 16.1.2010 HAVING NO.MOH-12/PIO/884/10 ISSUED BY the
3RD RESPONDENT.
P6:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY the MEMBERS OF THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 15.3.2010.
P7:- COPY OF THE SAID ALWYER NOTICE DTD. 27.4.2010 ISSUED TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
P8:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE ASSESSMENT REGISTER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT RELATING TO THE DISPUTED BUILDINGS OWNDER BY THE 6TH AND 7TH
RESPONDENTS.
P9:- COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DTD. 30.6.2010.
P10(a):- COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF the
6TH RESPONDENT FOR RUNNING LODGE AND FAST FOOD DTD. 7.4.2010.
P10(b):- COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY the 3RD RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE
7TH RESPONDENTSFR RUNNIN G LODGE AND FAST FOOD DTD. 7.4.2010.
P10(b):- COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FAVOUR OF THE
7TH RESPONDENTS FOR RUNNING LODGE AND ARESTAURANT DT.D 7.4.2010 .
P11:- LETTER DTD. 7.7.2010 ISSUED BY THE INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT RELATING TO THE RATE OF TAX.
tss
W.P.(C) NO.31473/2010
P12:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DTD. 2.8.2010.
P13:- COPIES OF THE MAILS DT.D 22.8.2010 SENT BY A MEMBER OF THE PETITIONER.
P14:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.D 2.4.2010 SUBMITTED BNY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ERNAKULAM.
P15:- COPY OF THE BROCHURE ALONG WITH THE SITE PLAN.
P16:- COPY OF THE DESCRIPTION OF RESPORT GIVEN IN THE INTERNET.
P17:- COPY OF THE LICENSE DTD. 25.4.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT OP
P18:- COPY OF THE LICENSE DTD. 22.4.2009 ISSDUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO
7TH RESPONDENT .
P19:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 29.12.2004 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH
RESPONDENT.
P20:- COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.
20.5.2005.
P21:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 1.12.07 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO
THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
P22:- COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO
THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
P23:- COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT FOR OBTAINING
PERMIT FOR OUT HOUSE DTD. 18.10.2004.
P24:- COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 7TH
RESPONDENT DTD 1.11.04.
P25:- COPY OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND REPSONDENT DT.D
16.6.2005.
P26:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 8.1.10 ISSUED BY THE MARG HOTELS AND RESORTS.
P27:- LIST OF PERSONS WHOSE NAMES APPEAR IN EXT.R-6 (K).
P28:- COPY OF REPLY GIVEN BY THE KSEB DTD. 13.1.2011.
P29:- COPY OF ASSESSMENT REPORT W.E.F. 1.4.2007 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
tss
W.P.(C) NO.31473/2010
P30:- COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE FIRE & RESCUE SERVICES DT.D 11.5.2005.
P31:- COPY OF THE VEHICLE OWNED BY THE AMBADY RESORT.
P32:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 21.6.2011 ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7 BY
THE HEALTH OFFICER.
P33 (a) & P33(b):- COPIES OF THE ORDERS DTD. 13.7.2011 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT HAVING NO.MOH 12-26473/10.
P34:-COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
SECRETARY DTD. 22.7.2011.
P35:- COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C)
18999/2010 DTD. 20.12.2010.
P36(a)&(b):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 30.8.2011 SUBMITTD BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE REPLY DTD.
20.9.2011.
P37:- COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE INFORMATION OFFICER, DEPAPRTMENT OF
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DTD. 31.10.2011.
P38 (a & P(b):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 30.8.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
AND THE REPLY DTD 28.9.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
P39(a) & (b):- COPIES OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE
PETITIOENR DT.D 12.9.2011 AND THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.
27.9.2011.
P40(a) & (b):- COPIES OF THE LETTERS DTD. 6.12.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
P4(a) & (b):- COPIES OF THE REPLIES GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 24.12.2011.
P42:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE DTD.
11.5.2005.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
tss
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
W.P.C.Nos.31473 of 2010,
18999 of 2011 & 3606 of 2012
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of June 2012
J U D G M E N T
W.P.C.No.31473 of 2010 is filed by an association of owners, who had purchased the villas promoted by respondents 6 and 7. It is alleged that respondents 6 and 7 started a restaurant under the name and style Adukkala Restaurant and Resort under the name and style of Ambady Retreat abutting the said residential colony and the pathway is used to reach the restaurant and resort which was exclusively provided to the villas. The petitioners point out that much hardship is caused to them on account of the resort and restaurant being conducted in the said area and that too by using the pathway through the residential area. It is their complaint that though they had taken up the matter with the 2nd respondent, Corporation of Cochin, despite their complaints the licence is being renewed from time to time. The petitioner therefore challenges Ext.P10(a) and P10
(b) licences and seeks a direction to respondents 2 to 5 to hear the petitioner also before considering any application for change W.P.C.Nos.31473/10 & conn.cases 2 of use/occupany which they apprehend that the contesting respondents may request for.
2. Respondents 6 and 7 have filed counter affidavit denying the allegations raised in the writ petition and further contended that as per the sale deeds, they were having ownership over an extent of 608.806 cents of land. As a first stage of development, they constructed a residential building in about 60 cents of land and a road was also provided from Chilavannoor road proceeding towards east and having a width of 7 meters. In 1994 they decided to sell the property on the southern side by constructing independent villas and 37 plots were earmarked for construction of independent villas alone and the 38th plot for construction of multi storied flats. For convenience of the plots/flat owners, cross roads having 5 meters width were formed on either side from the main road having 7 meter width and common infrastructures were provided. 37 plots were sold to various purchasers who were given only a right of way through 7 meter wide road and 5 meter wide cross road. It is therefore contended that the petitioner cannot claim any exclusive right in respect of the said 7 meter W.P.C.Nos.31473/10 & conn.cases 3 road and it is intended for use of others also.
3. The respondents 6 and 7 also submitted that though a suit was filed as O.S.611/04 before the Sub Court, Ernakulam by the petitioner Association seeking a declaration that the common area belongs to the villa owners, the said suit was dismissed for default. It is said that there are 74 owners in the entire property and they all have right to use the common areas. It is said that the third and final phase commenced in 2001 and was completed in 2007 and the apartments constructed in the 38th plot have been sold with a right to use the common area and roads as well. Another suit O.S.425 of 2005 filed before the Sub Court Ernakulam by two purchasers, was also dismissed by judgment dated 28/08/2009. Ext.R6(f) is the copy of the same and an appeal is pending before the High Court as R.F.A.189/2010.
4. It is further averred that after completion of the construction of the apartments an occupancy certificate was issued. Thereafter a licence was obtained for conducting service apartment /lodge. The 7th respondent also applied for licence for conducting a fast food service for which also a W.P.C.Nos.31473/10 & conn.cases 4 licence is issued by the local authority. Hence it is contended that the activity being carried on in the apartments have valid licence/permission. Therefore according to them the challenge to Exts.P10(a) and P10(b) are unsustainable.
5. The petitioner also produced certain additional documents as Exts.P32 to P42 along with I.A.No.2104 of 2012.
6. The question to be considered in this writ petition is whether there is any illegality on the part of the local authority in issuing Ext.P10(a) and Ext.P10(b) licences. Ext.P10(a) is issued permitting the 6th respondent to conduct a lodge in certain buildings namely 2356-A1-A4, B2, B3, C2, D1, D2, E1, E2, F1, H1, J1. This is for the period from 2010 to 2011. Ext.P10(b) is issued to conduct a fast food restaurant in building No.B2(a).
7. W.P.C.No.18999/2011 is filed by respondents 6 and 7 in W.P.C.No.31473/2010. The prayer in the said writ petition is to declare that the petitioners are entitled to deemed licence for the year 2011-2012 for conducting service apartments in the multi storied building and that the 2nd petitioner is entitled the benefit of deemed licence for conducting fast food restaurant as W.P.C.Nos.31473/10 & conn.cases 5 renewal of Exts.P2 and P3 licences. They have also set up a prayer to quash Ext.P7 and P9.
8. As per the averments in the writ petition though licences were issued for conducting lodging and fast food restaurant as evident from Exts.P2 and P3, (same as Ext.P10(a) and (b) in W.P.C.No.31473/2010), when renewal applications were filed, no orders have been passed in the matter. According to them, by operation of Section 492(15) of the Kerala Municipalities Act, they are entitled to claim deemed licence as no orders had been passed in the matter. Though there were only two respondents, the petitioner in W.P.C.No.31473/2010 was impleaded as additional respondent. They have also filed a counter affidavit reiterating their stand taken in W.P.C.No.31473/2010.
9. W.P.C.No.3606/2012 is filed by the petitioners in W.P.C.No.18999/2011. The relief sought in the said writ petition is to quash Ext.P7. Ext.P7 is an order issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer of Corporation of Cochin. It is stated that though a direction was issued to revise the tax as per the revised occupancy certificate and on the basis of the report W.P.C.Nos.31473/10 & conn.cases 6 revised occupancy certificate was issued, by virtue of an interim order passed by the High Court in W.P.C.No.31473/2010 stating that no licence could be issued in favour of the applicants and therefore the revised occupancy certificate stands cancelled. According to the petitioner, as per the completion plan dated 01/12/2007 produced as Ext.P1, the construction was for the purpose of residential/service apartments and the licence was also renewed and valid upto 31/3/2011. By P5 dated 22/1/2011, the occupancy certificate was revised as special residential which is now sought to be cancelled by Ext.P7 alleging that there is an interim order. According to the petitioner, the interim order was later clarified by this Court as per Ext.P6 order dated 21/3/2011 directing the local authority to receive application for renewal and consider the same with notice to the petitioners also. There was a direction to take a decision before 31/3/2011. Hence it is the case of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent ought to have recalled Ext.P7.
10. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that as per Government circular dated 15/11/2008, the 3rd respondent is vested with the power to sanction building permit W.P.C.Nos.31473/10 & conn.cases 7 having a plinth area varying from 301-750 Sq.meter only. When the plinth area of the building is above 1,500 sq.meter and has more than five floors change of occupancy has to be obtained from the Executive Engineer and the Secretary. The circular is produced as Ext.R1(a).
11. According to the Corporation, revised occupancy certificate was withdrawn on the basis of the interim order in W.P.C.No.31473/2010. The petitioner in W.P.C.No.31473/2010 has filed I.A.No.3933/2010 for impleading as additional respondent. Since they are already parties to the other writ petitions and common questions arise in the matter, they are impleaded as additional 4th respondent in the above writ petition also. It is relevant to note that Ext.P10(a) and P10(b) in W.P.C.No.31473/2010 which is the same as Exts.P2 and P3 in W.P.C.No.18999/2011 is now superseded by Ext.P7 dated 21/6/2011. Still further, by Ext.P9 dated 13/7/2011 (W.P.C.No.18999 of 2011), proceedings of the Secretary, Cochin Corporation, application for renewal submitted on the basis of an interim order dated 21/3/2011 in W.P.C.No.31473/2010 has been rejected. In regard to the occupancy certificate also W.P.C.Nos.31473/10 & conn.cases 8 though the same was revised on 22/1/2011 by Ext.P5 in W.P.C.No.3606/2012, the said order was withdrawn by Ext.P7 dated 25/1/2011 and by the time this Court had passed an interim order dated 21/10/2010 in W.P.C.No.31473 of 2010. Therefore the petitioners also have a case that the licence cannot be rejected because of the deemed provision under Section 492(15) of the Kerala Municipalities Act.
12. Two questions therefore arise for consideration in these writ petitions. One is whether the Corporation can revise the occupancy certificate from residential to special residential and whether the cancellation of such occupancy certificate is valid. The 2nd question is whether the Corporation can refuse to renew the licence/permission granted to the petitioners by way of Ext.P10(a) and Ext.P10(b) in W.P.C.No.34743/2010.
13. Going by the counter affidavit filed by the Corporation of Cochin filed in W.P.C.No.18999/2011, occupancy certificate dated 27/12/2007 has been issued in favour of the land owners and the assessment was made by the Town Planning Department as well as the revenue department in respect of the said building as coming under A1 category of W.P.C.Nos.31473/10 & conn.cases 9 KMBR. According to them, as per amended Rule, licence for lodging or resorts or hotels can only be made permissible in Ext.A2 category which comes under special residential building. According to them, the licence was converted to special residential since the petitioners only applied for a two room lodge (89 sq.meters) and after the amendment to KMBR and since the request for renewal of licence was for using an area of more than 1,200 sq.metres, the same was rejected. In respect of the restaurant also, the same is permissible only in the Group F commercial occupancy category and since the existing occupancy is residential, conversion cannot be granted as well. According to them, Ext.P9 order dated 13/7/2011 (W.P.C.No.18999/2011) has been issued to cancel the licence taking into consideration the aforesaid facts. Association also supports the stand taken by the Corporation as matters stand today.
14. In regard to the original application, there is no dispute about the fact that what was requested for by the petitioners in W.P.C.No.18999/2011 was coming under Group A that is residential. If there is a provision which enables the W.P.C.Nos.31473/10 & conn.cases 10 Corporation either by way of statute or rule to revise the occupancy certificate or for change of category, it is definitely open for the Corporation to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. Merely because there is some objection from certain people in the locality by itself should not be a reason for refusing a revised occupancy certificate if the building or apartment as the case may be can utilised or used for the said requirements as per KMBR. In other words, if a person requires to change the nature of occupancy of the building necessarily if the Rules permit, Corporation will have to permit such a change. It is purely within the discretion of the owner of the property to decide on the nature of business that he may carry on in a particular building which of course is subject to the reasonable restrictions imposed by various statutes or policy decisions of the local authority.
15. In regard to the licence for running a service apartment/restaurant, it depends upon the question whether the Corporation revises the occupancy certificate. In other words, revision of occupancy certificate alone will give a right to the land owners to use the premises for trade as contemplated in W.P.C.Nos.31473/10 & conn.cases 11 Exts.P10(a) and P10(b). These licences were issued on 07/04/2010. It is contended that renewal applications were submitted on or before 31/3/2011. The petitioner relies upon Section 492(15) which reads as follows:
"492(15): The acceptance by the Municipality of the prepayment of the fee for a licence or permission or for registration shall not entitle the person making such prepayment to the licence or permission or to registration, as the case may be, but only to refund of the fee in case of refusal of the licence or permission or of registration, but an applicant for the renewal of a licence or permission or registration shall until communication of orders on his application be entitled to act as if the licence or permission or registration had been renewed, and save as otherwise specially provided in this Act, if orders on an application for licence or permission or for registration are not communicated to the applicant within thirty days after the receipt of the application by the Secretary, the application shall be deemed to have been allowed for the year or for such less period as is mentioned in the application, and subject to the law, rules, bye-laws, regulations and all conditions W.P.C.Nos.31473/10 & conn.cases 12 ordinarily imposed."
Going by the above provision, definitely the petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of deemed licence as envisaged under the above provision as no orders were communicated within a period of thirty days from the date of submission of application, going by the fact that the application for renewal was submitted before 31/3/2011. The subsequent communication by way of Ext.P9 is therefore bad in law for the sole reason that the order is not communicated within a period of 30 days as contemplated under Section 492(15). As such, the trade licence which has been issued in favour of the petitioner is deemed to have been in force until 31/3/2012.
16. In the present case a revised occupancy certificate was issued without taking note of the interim order passed by this Court. Probably, it is in the said circumstances that, on coming to know about the interim order, the concerned Assistant Executive Engineer had revoked the said order by Ext.P7 (W.P.C.No.3606 of 2012). Therefore, as matters stand today, the request for revised occupancy certificate stand rejected only on account of the fact that the interim order dated W.P.C.Nos.31473/10 & conn.cases 13 21/10/2010 was not brought to the notice of the said authority. Therefore, this is a matter to be independently considered by the Corporation.
17. In regard to Ext.P7 in W.P.C.No.18999/2011, it is an order issued by the Health Officer relying upon the fact that there was an interim order restraining the issuance of licence in W.P.C.No.31473/2010. The said interim order was dated 21/10/2010 and was modified by order dated 21/3/2011. Ext.P7 order issued without reference to the modified order dated 21/3/2011 is therefore bad in law and is liable to be set aside. As already indicated by virtue of the deeming provision 492(15), the licence is deemed to have been granted until 31/3/2012 and therefore Ext.P7 is also liable to be set aside.
18. Once the issues involved in the above writ petitions are answered, the question to be considered is the reliefs to be granted in these writ petitions.
19. W.P.C.No.31473/2010. Since I have already held that trade licence has been renewed by virtue of deeming provision contained under Section 492(15) of the KMBR, the licence stands renewed until 31/3/2012 and now it is for the W.P.C.Nos.31473/10 & conn.cases 14 Corporation to consider whether a further renewal is to be granted or not. While considering fresh renewal application, the question is whether the petitioners are required to be heard in the matter. The main complaint of the petitioners in the above writ petition is that a right of way exclusively belonging to them is being used by the contesting party respondents 6 and 7 and their assignees. This is not a matter which could arise for consideration in this writ petition at all as it is a civil dispute between two contracting parties or the neighbouring land owner and as such, such matters cannot be considered in this writ petition. The challenge to Ext.P10(a) and (b) being renewed is also unsustainable. The petitioners being local residents have no legal right to interfere with the right to use by the neighbouring land owner in respect of his own property. There can be a complaint only if nature of use causes any nuisance which could only be resolved by way of civil remedy. It is for the Corporation to decide whether a trade licence can be issued to the occupant of a building and or whether an occupancy certificate originally granted could be revised or not. The adjacent land owners have no say in the matter. No statutory W.P.C.Nos.31473/10 & conn.cases 15 provision is brought to my notice regarding the petitioner's right to be heard in the matter. Of course, it is open for them to challenge such an order if the Corporation commits any illegality in exercising its power. Since I have already found that the matter requires re-consideration and I am directing respondents 6 and 7 to submit fresh application there is no necessity to proceed with the above writ petition and hence this writ petition is dismissed.
20. W.P.C.No.18999 of 2011
Having already held that Exts.P7 and P9 is without any basis, Exts.P7 and P9 stand quashed. The petitioners are deemed to have a trade licence until 31/3/2012. It is open for the petitioners to submit fresh application and if they have already submitted, the same may be considered by the Corporation in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 21. W.P.C.No.3606 of 2012 The petitioners are directed to file fresh application for revising the occupancy certificate which shall be considered and W.P.C.Nos.31473/10 & conn.cases 16 disposed of by the Corporation through its competent authority within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment untrammeled by any of the findings in Ext.P7.
(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr W.P.C.Nos.31473/10 & conn.cases 17 W.P.C.Nos.31473/10 & conn.cases 18 THOMAS.P.JOSEPH,J.
Crl.M.C.No. of 200
ORDER 19/01/2011 and hence it is necessary that the matter requires a re- consideration and of course subject to the Rules relevant to the subject. Hence, for a proper consideration of the question relating to revised occupancy certificate without setting aside Ext.P7, the following directions can be issued:
i) That the petitioners in W.P.C.No.3606/2012 shall submit a fresh application for revision of the occupancy certificate which shall be considered by the competent authority W.P.C.Nos.31473/10 & conn.cases 19 objectively and in the light of the observations made in the above judgment as early as possible and not later than a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
ii) the trade licence which have been issued in favour of the petitioner is deemed to have been in force until 31/3/2012