Kerala High Court
Rajesh.T.K vs The Additional District Magistrate on 23 April, 2010
Author: C.K. Abdul Rehim
Bench: C.K.Abdul Rehim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/26TH BHADRA 1934
WP(C).No. 23835 of 2011 (D)
---------------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------
RAJESH.T.K,AGED 29 YEARS,S/O.KUNJUMON,
THANOLIL HOUSE,AYYAPPANCOVIL.P.O,MATTUKATTA
IDUKKI DISTRICT-685502.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL
SRI.N.M.MADHU
SMT.C.S.RAJANI
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
COLLECTORATE,KUYILAMALA,PAINAVU,
IDUKKI-685603.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE,
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,MUSEUM JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF
EXPLOSIVES,KENDRIYA BHAVAN,KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-17.
4. THE AYYAPPANCOVIL GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,AYYAPPANCOVIL.P.O, MARIKULAM,
IDUKKI DISTRICT-685507.
5. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER,OFFICER OF THE
CHIEF TOWN PLANNER'S OFFICE,PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
6. THE TOWN PLANNER,CHERUTHONI.P.O,
VAZHATHOPPU,IDUKKI DISTRICT,IDUKKI-685502.
BY SRI.RAMAPRASAD UNNI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R4 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL
R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.NIDHEESH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
AS
WP(C).No. 23835 of 2011 (D)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1: COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER AND THE APPLICATION ALONG WITH
THE ENCLOSURE.
EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/4/2010.
EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CETYIFICATE DATED 4/5/2010.
EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/5/2010.
EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 18/5/2010.
EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21/5/2010.
EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26/5/2010.
EXT.P8: COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CETYIFICATE DATED 3/6/2010.
EXT.P9: COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 4/6/2010.
EXT.P10: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD 23/2/2011.
EXT.P11: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD 3/3/2011.
EXT.P12: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.5/3/2011.
EXT.P13: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 16/3/2011.
EXT.P14: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 11/4/2011.
EXT.P15: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 30/4/2011.
EXT.P16: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12/5/2011.
EXT.P17: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/5/2011.
EXT.P18: COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 29/7/2011.
EXT.P19: COPY OF THE INFORMATION DTD.17/8/2011.
EXT.P20: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 3/3/2012 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
EXT.P21: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24/3/2012.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.R6(A): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7/7/2011.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
AS
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(c) No. 23835 OF 2011-D
-------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012
J U D G M E N T
Application for regularisation of construction of a building proposed to be used for manufacturing Fire works was rejected by respondents 4 to 6, which is under challenge in this writ petition. Contention of the petitioner is that, his application for explosive licence was recommended by various authorities like, Tahsildar, Police Circle Inspector, officials of the Fire and Rescue Department, officials of PWD etc., who had granted no objections. When the application for regularisation of the construction was submitted to the 4th respondent, it was forwarded for approval of the respondents 5 and 6, as required under Rule 5 (1) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules' for short). The application accompanied by the plans, which was forwarded by the 4th respondent for approval was returned on more than one occasion by the 6th respondent, requiring W.P.(c) No.23835/2011 -2- to rectify certain defects pointed out and requesting to submit fresh site plan and other documents in accordance with the Rules. Even though the petitioner submitted revised plans the 5th respondent had ultimately rejected the approval in Ext.P18, under Rule 134, mentioning the reason that the construction was not made in confirmity with the Rules and that no plan in compliance with the requirements in Rule 6 has been submitted. Consequent to Ext.P18 the 4th respondent had intimated the petitioner that the application for regularisation stands rejected, through Ext.P19. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P18 and P19 on various grounds.
2. In the counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent it is specifically contended that there is clear violation of Rule 61 (4) in providing minimum width for access to the building. Therefore regularisation of construction cannot be granted because the purpose for which the building is intended to be used is one coming withins the purview of W.P.(c) No.23835/2011 -3- 'Hazardous Occupancy' mentioned in Rule 34 (3) (1), coming under Group I (2).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the authorities under the Explosives Act have already recommended for grant of licence by evaluating suitability of the building intended for manufacture of Fire works, rejection of the regularisation application is not justified. It is pertinent to note that construction of building or regularisation of any construction, within the limits of the Grama Panchayat, is governed by provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011. Competent authority under the said Rules has to evaluate suitability of the building on the basis of provisions contained in the said Rules and granting of no objection for the purpose of explosive licence by any authority cannot be taken as a ground to approve regularisation of the construction, in case the construction is violative of the provisions in the Rules. W.P.(c) No.23835/2011 -4-
4. Further contention of the petitioner is that land in question is not covered by any scheme formulated under the Town Planning Act and as such approval of the Town Planner is not required. On going by the provisions contained in Rule 34 and Rule 61 as well as Rule 5 (10) it is mandatory that the 4th respondent panchayat should get approval of respondent 5 or 6 as the case may be, before granting building permit or before granting regularisation of any construction. Therefore I am of the view that the stand taken by 4th respondent in forwarding the application for approval of respondents 5 and 6 cannot be challenged in any manner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a further attempt to assail the impugned decision on the basis that there is no minimum required width provided in the Rules. According to him compliance of the specification provided under Rule 61 (4) is not necessary, because suitability of the premises for manufacture of Fire works need to be W.P.(c) No.23835/2011 -5- evaluated by the authorities under the Explosives Act and the relevant Rules thereunder. I take note of the fact that the petitioner is not challenging validity of Rule 61 (4) and as such he cannot raise any such contention.
6. Under the above mentioned circumstances none of the contentions raised in challenge of Ext.P18 and P19 deserves merit. Therefore the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
7. It is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to submit fresh application for regularisation of the construction, after satisfying the required parameters. Needless to say that respondents 4 to 6 shall deal with such application if any submitted, without any further delay.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
AMG True copy P.A to Judge