Kerala High Court
St.Mary'S Jacobite Syrian Church vs The District Collector on 16 November, 2016
Author: Shaji P. Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/25TH KARTHIKA, 1938
WP(C).No. 35462 of 2016 (G)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------
ST.MARY'S JACOBITE SYRIAN CHURCH,
THENGODE, KAKKANAD P.O.
ERNAKULAM-682030, REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE
BABU KIZHAKKADATH.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.C.ELDHO
SRI.JIJO THOMAS
SRI.MALLENATHAN.M.
SRI.ANEESH JAMES
SMT.KRISHNA SANTHOSH
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION,
COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682030.
2. THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
THRIKKAKARA, KAKKANAD P.O,
KOCHI-682030.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT K.R.DEEPA
R2 BY SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
K.V.
WP(C).No. 35462 of 2016 (G)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 9515/2010
DATED.19-10-2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED.6-2-15 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
BUILDING RULES SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED.21-4-15 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.2476/15 DATED.9-6-15
ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER.
P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.TP1/10813/15
DATED.12-6-15 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL
-----------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
K.V.
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No. 35462 OF 2016
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of November, 2016
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is a parish church of the Jacobite Syrian community and has a Kurisumthotti located at Navodaya Junction. Parish committee decided to reconstruct the Kurisumthotti and sanctions were obtained from all authorities and plan was placed before the first respondent, who rejected the plan without giving any reasons. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court and secured Ext. P1 judgment, whereby the first respondent was directed to pass orders afresh. Thereafter, consequent to inaction, contempt case was preferred before this Court. While so, first respondent passed Ext. P2 order directing the petitioner to submit fresh application with a revised plan for reconstruction. Accordingly, petitioner submitted Ext. P3 revised plan before the second respondent, which was forwarded by the second respondent W.P.(C). No. 35462 OF 2016 2 to the first respondent to secure sanction as provided under the proviso to Sub-Rule 6B of Rule 7 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. However, the same was not considered by the first respondent inspite of the earnest efforts of the petitioner and it is in this backdrop, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate directions.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the documents on record, and the pleadings put forth by the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent submitted that file bearing No. 1128/2015, in accordance with Ext. P3 plan is forwarded to the first respondent, as early as on 16.04.2015. However, necessary sanction is not forwarded to the second respondent, which constrains the second respondent to consider the plan submitted by the petitioner. W.P.(C). No. 35462 OF 2016 3
4. Taking note of the respective submissions made across the bar and the sequence of events, I am of the considered opinion that a direction can be issued to the first respondent to take necessary steps. Therefore, there will be a direction to the first respondent to take necessary action in Ext. P3 plan submitted by the petitioner and forwarded by the second respondent, as per the file number referred above, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE DCS