Kerala High Court
Sabitha Beevi vs The Corporation Of Thiruvananthapuram on 17 March, 2020
Author: S.Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1941
WA.No.409 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 31610/2019(A) OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
SABITHA BEEVI,
AGED 53 YEARS,
WIFE OF SHAHUL HAMEED, SUBAHI, T.C. IX//665 (1),
NANTHENCODE, KOWDIAR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.VINOD BHAT
KUM.ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN
SMT.MINI V.MENON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.
2 THE SECRETARY,
CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, CORPORATION
OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.
R1-R2 BY ADVS.SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)
SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,TVPM CORPORATION
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.03.2020,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.409/2020 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of March, 2020 S.Manikumar, CJ.
Challenge in this appeal is to the decision of the writ court, which after considering the pleadings and submissions of the parties therein and taking note of Sub-section 6 of Section 509 and Section 510 of the Kerala Municipality Act and Rule 8(3) of the Tribunal for the Kerala Local Self Government Institution Rules, 1999, and also of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Ganesan v. Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board [2019(2) KLT 925 (SC)], read along with Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act dismissed the writ petition, filed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 therein to declare that the appellant acquired, a deemed regularization of the construction already made and a deemed permit for the remaining construction as per Section 392(2) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and Rule 15(2) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 and also declined to compel the respondents 1 and 2 to allow the appellant to complete the work without any interference on the basis of the deemed permit. Short facts leading to the writ appeal are as here under:
The petitioner before the learned single Judge in writ petition numbered as W.A.No.409/2020 3 W.P.(C).31610/2019 is the appellant. The petitioner/appellant filed the said writ petition inter aliea seeking issuance of writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P7; for issuance of writ of mandamus to declare that the petitioner acquired deemed regularization and deemed permit under the Kerala Municipality Act and the Rules there under; and for issuance of the writ of mandamus compelling the respondents to allow the petitioner to complete the construction of the roof. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that ExtP7 is an appealable order and that the petitioner having lost the right to file the appeal for bar of limitation, the writ petition is not entertainable. The petitioner/appellant is aggrieved by the said judgment.
The appellant, earlier faced a complaint initiated by one Chandrika Kumari alleging that the 3rd floor of the building owned by the appellant was an illegal construction and that the conversion of roof from a temporary tinned one to a concrete slab structure was also illegal. At the time when such a complaint was lodged by Chandrika Kumari, the appellant had partly converted the tinned roof to a concrete one. The respondents acting on the complaint issued stop memo. Thus the appellant's work of conversion of roof was stopped. However, Chandrika Kumari alleging that the appellant continued with the work approached this Hon'ble Court by preferring writ petition numbered as W.P.(c) 32394/2016. The appellant was arrayed as respondent No.4 in the said writ petition. This Hon'ble Court upon hearing the parties passed judgment dated 07-12-2016. The said judgment is Ext.P1.
In Ext.P1 the learned single Judge, in paragraph 5 thereof took note of the W.A.No.409/2020 4 dispute with respect to the floors available in the building of the appellant. It was then settled that the appellant's building had four floors which were numbered by the respondents as T.C.XI-665/1, 2, 3 and 4 for each floor. The issue was regarding the conversion of tinned roof structure to a concrete one. The learned Judge held that such conversion did require permit from the respondents. The learned Judge then granted the following reliefs in paragraph 7 as follows:
"The 4th respondent hence would have to file a fresh application for regularizing the unauthorized construction already made, against which demolition order has been issued and also file an application to sanction the further construction. If such applications are filed the Corporation shall consider it, in accordance with the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999."
As was directed in Ext.P1, the appellant filed Ext.P2 application for regularization and Ext.P3 application for grant of permit, however, Exts.P2 and P3 were not disposed of by the respondents, and aggrieved the appellant approached this Hon'ble Court seeing appropriate direction. This Hon'ble Court vide Ext.P4 judgment [WP.(C) No.18388/2017 dated 02-06-2017] directed the respondents to consider Exts.P2 and P3 applications within two months.
According to the appellant there was no consideration of Exts.P2 and P3 applications by the respondent despite Exts.P1 and P4 judgments of this Hon'ble Court. Hence the appellant approached the Council of the Corporation with a written request to consider Exts.P2 and P3 applications. The said request is evident from Ext.P6. The Council too did not pass any order on Exts.P2 and P3 applications. Hence the appellant claimed deemed permit or deemed regularization W.A.No.409/2020 5 in the wake of the Council having failed to pass any order on Exts.P2 and P3.
The appellant thus approached this Hon'ble Court seeking requisite directions to the respondents for declaring acquisition of deemed permit and deemed regularization by preferring writ petition numbered as W.P.(c) 31911/2017. When W.P.(c) 31911/2017 came up before this Hon'ble Court, an interim order dated 11-12-2017 was passed. The said order reads as follows:
"The petitioner shall appear before the 2 nd respondent at his office at 11.00 a.m. on 20/12/2017 for a hearing pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.P4 judgment."
Ext.P4 judgment referred to in the said order is the judgment in W.P.(c) 18388 of 2017-Ext.P4 herein. It is further submitted that the scope of hearing by the 2nd petitioner was limited to consider Exts.P2 and P3 applications which sought for regularization of the conversion of tinned roof to concrete structure and permit for completing the roof work. No other issue survived for hearing before the respondents.
However, during the pendency of W.P.(c) 31911/2017 the respondents passed Ext.P7 order dated 03-02-2018, holding that the construction of the 3 rd floor of the appellant's building was illegal, and therefore the conversion of roof from tinned to a concrete one being constructed on the 3 rd floor was also illegal. It is also submitted that Ext.P7 order is per se illegal and it has gone beyond the dictate of this Hon'ble Court made clear by Exts.P1 and P4 judgment.
Impugned judgment is assailed on the following grounds:
"a) The scope of hearing by the respondents was limited to Exts.P2 and P3 applications seeking regularization/permit for W.A.No.409/2020 6 construction/conversion of roof structure to the 3 rd floor of the appellant's building.
b) By Ext.P7 order, the finding that the construction of 3 rd floor building was without permit is one exceeding the jurisdiction.
c) The issue regarding the number of floors legally constructed by the appellant was settled by Ext.P1 judgment which thereafter left no scope for the respondents to reopen the said issue.
d) The respondents accepted that the four floors (ground floor plus three flours) were numbered by the respondents way back in the year 2000 and that the respondents regularly collected property tax for the 4th floor.
e) The non-consideration of an appeal against Ext.P7 order by the Tribunal under the Act cannot limit the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when Ext.P7 is gross abuse of process of law.
f) Passing of Ext.P7 order is an affront to Ext.P1 judgment of this Hon'ble Court.
g) The learned single Judge overlooked the contents in Ext.P7 order."
2. Though the judgment in W.P.(C).No.31610 of 2019 dated 28.01.2019 is assailed on various grounds, and reliance is made on various decisions by Sri.Vinod Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri.N.Nandakumara Menon, the learned senior counsel for the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram, we are not inclined to enter into the arena of controversy as to whether the writ petition can be entertained after the expiry of the statutory period provided for filing an appeal or revision as the case may be, perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the writ court W.A.No.409/2020 7 has considered Sub-Section (6) of Section 509 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, which deals with appeal and revisions. For brevity Section 509 and Sub-section (6) thereto are extracted here-under:
"509. Appeal and revision. -(1) An appeal may be preferred to the Council against any notice issued or any order passed or action taken by the Chairperson or the Secretary under any of the provisions of this Act other than Sections 390, 391, 395, 406 and 408 or the rules or bye-laws or regulations made thereunder. (2) ****** (3) ****** (4) ****** (5) ****** (6) Any person may file an appeal against any notice issued or any order passed by the Secretary under Sections 390, 391, 395, 406 and 408 to the Tribunal Constituted for the Local Self Government Institutions under Section 271 S of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1996 (13 of 1994), within thirty days from the date of passing such order.
3. This Court also takes note of Section 510, which provides for limitation for filing an appeal, the same reads thus:
"510. Limitation of time for appeal. - Where in any case in which no time limit for presentation of an appeal has been provided under this Act such appeal shall subject to the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Central Act 36 of 1963) be presented-
(a) Where the appeal is against an order granting a licence or permission, within thirty days after the date of the publication of the order on the notice board of the office of the Municipality;
and W.A.No.409/2020 8
(b) in other cases, within thirty days after the date of the receipt of the order or proceedings against which the appeal is made."
4. We are now faced with a situation as to whether a writ petition is maintainable after the expiry of the statutory period provided therefore, for filing appeal or revision as the case may be. Though, several decisions are placed by either side to contend that under extraordinary circumstances, remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is available and contra, we are not inclined to enter into the above said arena for the reason that in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 565 read with Section 407 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and in suppression of Kerala Municipality Building (Regularization of Unauthorized Construction) Rules, 2014 issued under G.O.(Ms.) No.39/2014/LSGD dated 14 th February, 2014 and published as S.R.O.No.122/2014 in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No.529 dated the 17th February, 2014, the Government of Kerala have brought into force, the Kerala Municipality Building (Regularization of Unauthorized Construction) Rules, 2018, on and with effect from 15.02.2018, hereinafter called Rules, 2018. As per Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 1 of Rules, 2018, the Rules shall apply to the unauthorized construction carried out on or before 31.07.2017 in any Municipal and Municipal Corporation area in the State. Admittedly, the building in question falls within the Thiruvanathapuram Municipal Corporation. Rule 2 (k) thereto W.A.No.409/2020 9 defines unauthorized construction, which reads thus:
"(k) "Unauthorised Construction" means any construction, addition or reconstruction carried out or completed on or before the 31st day of July, 2017 and which the Secretary has no power to regularise under Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and Chapter XX of the Building Rules."
5. Rule 3 of Rules, 2018, deals with submission of the application for regularization of unauthorized construction, which is extracted here- under:
"3. Submission of application for regularization of unauthorized Construction.- (1) Application for regularization of unauthorized construction declaring the details pertaining to the unauthorized construction shall be submitted to the Secretary in Form1-A appended to these Rules, in duplicate, and the application fee specified in Rule 4 within ninety days of the date of notification of these Rules in the Kerala Gazette."
6. The application shall also be accompanied by the documents delineated under sub-rule (2) thereunder. The procedure in case of application for regularization is rejected, is set out in Rule (9) of the said Rules:
"(9) Procedure in case the application for regularization is rejected etc.- (1) In case if the application for regularization is rejected or the applicant does not fully comply with any of the conditions stipulated in the regularization order including non-remittance of compounding fee within the time limit specified, it shall be the responsibility of the Secretary to take appropriate action for the demolition of the building or part thereof as per the provisions contained in the Building Rules."W.A.No.409/2020 10
7. Any person aggrieved by the the order issued under the provisions under the Rules, 2018, may file a review to the Government. Rule 10 deals with the review, which reads thus:
"(10) Review by Government.- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order issued under the provisions of these rules, may file a petition for review, to the Government:
Provided that there shall be only one review against any order issued.
(2) A petition for review under sub-rule(1) shall be presented within thirty days from the date of service of the order, allowing, or rejecting the application by the Secretary. (3) The review petition shall be in white paper typed or written in ink, affixed with court fee stamp worth rupees five, and the same shall be submitted along with the true copy of the order to be reviewed.
(4) When a petition for review has been presented under these rules, the Government may, if found necessary, stay the operation of the order, pending consideration of the petition. (5) The Government shall, after reviewing the petition, pass appropriate orders thereon after hearing the petitioner and forward the same to the Secretary concerned, with copy thereof to the Tows Planner.
(6) In case the review petition is rejected, the Secretary shall initiate action as provided under rule 9.
8. Suo moto power is also conferred on the Government to cancel or revise the order under Section 11. Section 11 is extracted hereunder:
"11. Power of the Government to cancel or revise the order etc .-W.A.No.409/2020 11
(1) The Government shall have the power to cancel or revise any order issued under these rules at any time, if found that any building regularized is of serious safety and security concerns. (2) The Government shall have the power to cancel any order issued under these rules at any time, after hearing the applicant once, if it has come to the notice that the information furnished by the applicant or the certification made by the licensee in the plans and in the application in Form 1-A or structural stability certificate issued by the Structural Engineer, is by suppression or misrepresentation of facts.
(3) Notwithstanding the above, Government shall have the power to take or cause to take appropriate legal action against those who have suppressed or misrepresented the facts."
9. Subject dispute is regarding rejection of the request for conversion of roof of a building. Relevant portion of the impugned judgment is extracted here-under for reference:
"The short point involved in the present case is whether the petitioner when earlier been relegated by this court vide Ext.P8 judgment dated 17.10.2019 to challenge Annexure-I order dated 03.02.2018 (produced as Ext.P7 in this writ petition), in any manner, that he may deem fit. Particularly when the order dated 03.02.2018 (Ext.P7) in the previous writ petition was appealable. Can limitation to file same, be, condoned.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner approached the Municipal Corporation authorities and they refused to entertain the appeal as the limitation period was over.
3. The law with regard to the exclusion of the limitation as per the provisions of Section 29(2) of the limitation Act, 1963 is no W.A.No.409/2020 12 longer res integra. This Court, in Thomas Thomas v. Kottayam Municipality [2008 (3) KLT 964] while noticing the provisions of Rule 8(3), of the Tribunal constituted for hearing the appeals, held that it cannot condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. As per Section 509(6) of the Kerala Municipality Act and Rules, the limitation is 30 days. It can be extended by another 30 days if the appeal is accompanied by an application under Section 5 as per the provisions of Section 510 of the Kerala Municipality Act and Rules. For the sake of brevity Sub Section 6 of Section 509 and 510 of the Kerala Municipality Act and Rules is reproduced herein below:
"509. Appeal and revision. -(1) An appeal may be preferred to the Council against any notice issued or any order passed or action taken by the Chairperson or the Secretary under any of the provisions of this Act other than Sections 390, 391, 395, 406 and 408 or the rules or bye-laws or regulations made thereunder.
(2) ****** (3) ****** (4) ****** (5) ****** (6) Any person may file an appeal against any notice issued or any order passed by the Secretary under Sections 390, 391, 395, 406 and 408 to the Tribunal Constituted for the Local Self Government Institutions under Section 271 S of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1996 (13 of 1994), within thirty days from the date of passing such order.
510. Limitation of time for appeal. - Where in any case in which no time limit for presentation of an appeal has been provided under this Act such appeal shall subject to the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Central Act 36 of 1963) be presented-W.A.No.409/2020 13
(a) Where the appeal is against an order granting a licence or permission, within thirty days after the date of the publication of the order on the notice board of the office of the Municipality; and
(b) in other cases, within thirty days after the date of the receipt of the order or proceedings against which the appeal is made."
4. The law with regard to the applicability of provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act would not be applicable as the Tribunal does not have the trappings of a court. The aforementioned point has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganesan v. Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board [2019 (2) KLT 925(SC)] while discussing all the case law on the subject held that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act is confined to the suits, appeals and applications referred to in special or local law to be filed in court and not before the statutory authorities.
Since the power is with the Tribunal, Tribunal cannot be construed to be court and therefore, petitioner has already lost the right to file the limitation and cannot even take the benefit of provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for exclusion of the period spent in the previous writ and the present one. Accordingly no ground is made out for interference."
10. The nature of the dispute resulting in the order of rejection of deemed permit is under Rule 15 (2) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, which is extracted here-under:
15. Reference to council where the Secretary delay to grant or refuse to approve or permit.-
(1) The council shall, if the Secretary neither approves nor disapproves a building site, neither gives nor refuses permission to W.A.No.409/2020 14 execute any work within thirty days from the date of receipt of the application, on the written request of the applicant, be bound to determine whether such approval or permission should be given or not.
(2) Where the Council does not, within one month from the date of receipt of such written request, determine whether such approval or permission should be given or not, such approval or permission shall be deemed to have been given, and the applicant may proceed to execute work, but not so as to contravene any provision of the Act or these rules or bye-laws made thereunder."
11. Order of the Secretary of the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram in E14/181864/16 dated 03.02.2018 rejecting the application for regularization dated 19.01.2017, apparently under Rule 143 of Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 is reproduced here-under:
"The complainant Smt.J.R. Chandrika Kumari and you were heard on 20-12-2017 with regard to the complaint that you have constructed the 3rd floor on the exiting building having ground floor plus two floors in such a manner as to cause danger to Chandrika Kumari's property and is in violation of Building rules whereby requiring demolition. The hearing was conducted as per directions in reference No.2 above.
Your application for conversion of tin sheet roof to concrete roof is stopped by the Corporation whereas according to you permission is to be granted for such conversion as per Rule 102(4) of KMB Rules and you have also sought for regularization of the conversion work hitherto made. You also approached the Hon'ble High Court seeking deemed permit under Rule 15 of the Rules and the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(c) 31911/17, by interim order directed you to appear before the W.A.No.409/2020 15 Secretary for hearing on your application for regularization/permit. After scrutinizing the evidence it is understood by the Corporation that the 3rd floor of the building is not seen in the assessment register of the Corporation and that the building No.T.C.11/665(4) is not the number of the building on the 3 rd floor. Whereas it is the number of the building for one room in the ground floor, bed room in the 1 floor, toilet and kitchen in the 2 nd floor. In the assessment register there is no record pertaining to the 3 rd floor.
On inspection of the site it is seen that the set back for a building having three floors is 2.5 meters as per Rule 24(4) of Rules whereas the set back seen is only 90 c.ms. is available. 1.7 meter is required from the boundary line to the building. Hence the set back for a three storied building is not available and hence Rule 102(4) cannot be applied for conversion of the roof. As the 3rd floor of your building is not recorded in the assessment register of Corporation, consideration/conversion on the 3rd floor cannot be considered under Rule 102(4).
Therefore as the 3rd floor of your building is in violation of the Rules, the application seeking regularization/deemed permission under Rule 15(2) cannot be considered.
Hence your application dated 19-01-2017 seeking regularization (application No.7334) and application seeking permit dated 19-01-2017 (No.7418) is rejected."
12. Admittedly, the building falls within the jurisdictional limits of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, and application seeking regularization has been rejected. That does not affect the construction allegedly put up, since in terms of Rule 2 (k) of Kerala Municipality Building (Regularization of Unauthorized Construction) Rules, 2018, subject to the provisions of the rules, any construction, addition or reconstruction carried out or completed W.A.No.409/2020 16 on or before 31.07.2017 and which secretary has no power to regularize under Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, Chapter XX of the Building Rules. However, construction is considered for regularization, if an application is submitted to the Secretary in Form 1-A appended to the Kerala Municipality Building (Regularization of Unauthorized Construction) Rules, 2018. But as per Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 6 of the Rules, 2018, on scrutiny of the application for regularization, if it is found that the unauthorized construction does not conform to the provisions set out in Rule 6, the Secretary shall reject the application citing the reason for rejection. As per Sub-rule (5) of Rule 6, the Secretary shall reject the application within sixty days, if they are not in order and or not duly filled up or signed or certified, or violating the provisions of the Acts and rules mentioned in sub-rule (4) of Rule 6, citing reason for rejection. If the application satisfies the requirement under sub-rule (4) and endorse with the required documents, then as per sub-rule (6) of Rules, 2018, the Town Planner shall consider the duly filled up Forms and the drawing forwarded by the Secretary and prepare technical recommendations in Form 1-C. The Town Planner may, if necessary, inspect or cause to inspect the location and/or site and/or the building. Thereafter, the Town Planner may reject and return the Forms and the drawings to the Secretary, if they are not in order and or not duly filled up or signed or certified, citing reasons for the non-acceptance. Ultimately W.A.No.409/2020 17 the Town Planner as per sub-rule (8) of Rule 6 shall place the following within sixty days from the date of receipt, if they are in order, before the Committee constituted by the Government. Documents to be placed before the Committee by the Town Planner is shown below:
(i) Forms 1-A, 1-B and 1-C duly filled up and signed in all respects;
(ii) Two sets of drawings forwarded by the Secretary and signed and certified by the Town Planner to the effect that the technical recommendation made has reference to this drawings.
13. Sub-rule (8) and (10) of Rule 6 of the Rules, 2018, take care of the further procedure regarding sanction for regularization, which shall contain the details set out in Rule (10) of the Rules, 2018. In the above view, notwithstanding right of the appellant to challenge the rejection of the permit under the Kerala Municipality Act and the Rules made thereunder, provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building (Regularization of Unauthorized Construction) Rules, 2018 enables the appellant to submit an application for regularization of any construction, addition or reconstruction carried out or completed on or before 31.07.2017 subject of course to satisfying the requirements under the Rules, 2018. During the course of hearing, we are informed that the time limit for submission of an application under Rule 3 of 2018 Rules initially, granted was being periodically extended, and currently up to 31.03.2020. In as much as, Kerala Municipality Building W.A.No.409/2020 18 (Regularization of Unauthorized Construction) Rules, 2018 enable submission of an application for regularization of unauthorized construction, extended up to 31.03.2020, we are of the view that notwithstanding the filing of the writ petition, the appellant has independent right, to file an application before the competent authority on or before 31.03.2020.
14. The controversy is as to whether a writ petition can be filed after the expiry of the statutory period as provided under Sections 509 and 510 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, writ court has not addressed the said issue, instead dismissed the writ petition, taking note of the decision stated supra. As the appellant has exclusive right under Rule 3 of the Kerala Municipality Building (Regularization of Unauthorized Construction) Rules, 2018 for filing application before the competent authority, we are of the view that the impugned judgment should not stand as an impediment in the way of the appellant taking recourse to the beneficial legislation, which enables filing of an application for regularization. That apart, we are of the view that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act dealing with extension of the period of limitation and the decision in Ganesan v. Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board [2019 (2) KLT 925 (SC)] of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has no relevance to the facts of the case. Appellant has not moved any application under Section 510 of the Kerala Municipality Act before the Tribunal or the council. In the light of W.A.No.409/2020 19 the discussion, the impugned judgment made in W.P.(C).No.31610 of 2019 dated 07.01.2020 is liable to be interfered with and accordingly the same is set aside. Liberty is granted to the appellant to file an application as stated supra on or before 31.03.2020 and if any such application is made before the competent authority, the authority shall dispose of the same in terms of the proceedings set out under Rule 6 of the Kerala Municipality Building (Regularization of Unauthorized Construction) Rules, 2018, within the time frame provided therein, and in accordance with law.
The writ appeal is allowed as above.
Sd/-
S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY
DG JUDGE