Kerala High Court
Dr.K.M. Nazar vs State Of Kerala on 4 June, 2015
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/8TH KARTHIKA, 1939
WP(C).No. 33482 of 2017 (I)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
DR.K.M. NAZAR,
AGED 53 YEARS,
S/O.LATE MOIDEENKUTTY,
KARUKAPPADATH HOUSE,
U.C.COLLEGE P.O.,
KADUNGALLUR, ALUVA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR
SRI.V.K.SREEJITH
SRI.M.V.SURESH (KANNUR)
SRI.V.MANOJKUMAR
SMT.M.SRUTHI DAS
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE NORTH PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY,
NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. THE SECRETARY,
NORTH PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY,
NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
4. THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEER,
NORTH PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY,
NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAVI KRISHNAN
R2-R4 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH,SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
EL
WP(C).No. 33482 of 2017 (I)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 SERIES TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT, LOCATION SKETCH AND
THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE.
EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF APPROVED PLAN BEARING NO.BA 126/2015,
TP 5709/15 DATED 04.06.2015.
EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE CONSTRUCTION
OF THE BUILDING.
EXHIBIT P3(A). TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE CONSTRUCTION
OF THE BUILDING.
EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF NOTICE/STOP MEMO DATED 22.07.2017
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 04.08.2017 SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 17.08.2017.
EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 23.08.2017.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
NIL
TRUE COPY
P.S. TO JUDGE
EL
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).No.33482 of 2017-I
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2017
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has been issued a building permit by the second respondent Municipality for construction of a commercial building. In the course of construction, the petitioner has been issued Ext.P4 stop memo stating that the construction of the building is not in accordance with the terms of the building permit and the Building Rules. Ext.P4 memo is under challenge in the writ petition. The specific case of the petitioner is that the construction of the building is in accordance with the building plan and permit and that the deviations earlier pointed out by the Municipal officials have been rectified by the petitioner.
2. In the light of the contention of the petitioner, this Court passed the following interim order on 20.10.2017:
"Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to pass an interim order directing respondents 3 and 4 to inspect the property of the petitioner referred to in the writ petition and submit a report before this Court as to whether the modification suggested by respondents 3 and 4 have been carried out by the petitioner."
WP.(C).No.33482/2017-I 2 Pursuant to the said interim order, a report has been filed by the Municipality. The relevant portion of the report reads thus:
"fIVN_x_Hm U_xaiN^O H_VN^C dIUVJHBZ H?JaKD^O_ Ix^D_ \M_:nD_fa %?_XmE^HJ_W %gHbWC"
H?J_ 22/07/2017_We?_I_/L_._126/15 HOV dI5^x" Xmgx^Mm fNgN^ HW5_ U_VF`5xC" &UVcfM?a5Oa"
f:Oq_GaIm.e&OD_Hm 04/08/2017_f\ dV`.X^Xy_fa NyaI?_O_W I^VA_"7m /x_OOaf? dIVmH" Ix_Yx_:nD^O_ %y_O_:n_GaUD^Cm.eDa?VKaU XmE\ Ix_gV^GHO_W 5f_ I^VA_"7m Xa7NN^A^X gy^A_W H_Ka" U{fxOG_5" )OxJ_W H_VN_:n plinth Beam fI^{_:na D^]mJ_O_GaUDa" dIgUVH"
X^icfM?aJ_O_GaUDa" &5aKa.e?_O^fa f5G_?H_VN^C"
G.floor, F.floor, S.floor, T.floor .K_UOaf?
H_VN^C Framed structure N^dD"
IbVJ`5x_:n_GaUD^5aKa.e?_ f5G_?J_fa 2xa hXA_W
gy^A_W H_Ka" fIVN_xm dI5^x" )U %{Ua5Z I^\_AaKDa"
f5G_?J_fa NaX UV" )ZfMf?OaU NxaUVB{_W f5."
L_&V 1999 Hm U_gGON^O_ %{Ua5Z I^\_:n_GaUDaN^5aKa." In the light of the said report, there is absolutely no reason why the petitioner should be prevented from carrying out the construction undertaken by him in terms of the permit granted to him.
Ext.P4 stop memo, in the circumstances, is quashed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Kvs/-
// true copy //