Kerala High Court
Thomas Paul vs State Of Kerala on 8 April, 2022
Author: T.R.Ravi
Bench: T.R.Ravi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 4189 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
THOMAS PAUL
AGED 46 YEARS
SON OF PAILEE POULOSE,
PUNAKKAL HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686696
BY ADVS.
PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
ARJUN S BENEDICT
JOSEPH P P
JOMON J. MALIEKAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ALUVA-MUNNAR ROAD,
SH 16, KOTHAMANGALAM
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686666
3 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY.
ALUVA-MUNNAR ROAD, SH 16, KOTHAMANGALAM,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686666
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SHRI.JOICE GEORGE, SC, KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY
SRI.B.S.SYAMANTHAK, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
W.P.(C) No.4189 of 2022
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has carried out the construction of a building on the basis of Exts.P1 and P2 issued by the 2 nd respondent. Partial occupancy certificate has been issued by Exts.P3 and P4. The 2nd respondent has issued Ext.P5 notice to the petitioner to comply certain conditions. It can be seen that the compliance is required as per Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 as well as under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P6 reply stating that the 1999 Rules were applicable at the time when the building permit was granted and the construction was being proceeded with and insistence on compliance with requirements of the 2019 Rules is not be permissible. The petitioner, has produced Ext.P8 judgment of this Court, in which, this Court has held that the law should be the one applicable as on the date of grant of building permit pursuant to which the construction was made. As similar view has been expressed in Ext.P9 judgment also, I do not find any reason to take a different view.
3 W.P.(C) No.4189 of 20222. In the above circumstances, the counsel for the 2 nd respondent submitted that the petitioner may submit a request for regularization in the proper format and the same will be considered in accordance with law.
The writ petition is hence disposed of directing the petitioner to submit an application for regularization within two weeks from today. On receipt of the application, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same on the basis of 1999 Rules and pass necessary orders within one month of receipt of the application.
Sd/-
T.R. RAVI JUDGE rpk 4 W.P.(C) No.4189 of 2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY MUNICIPALITY BEARING NO. BA 155/11-12 DATED 17/04/2013 Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.10.2014 Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DATED 17/04/2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE BASEMENT OF PETITIONER'S BUILDING.
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DATED 5/11/2014, ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPALITY FOR THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE PETITIONER'S BUILDING.
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02.12.2021 SENT BY THE MUNICIPALITY TO PETITIONER Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT .
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/1/2022 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) 5453/2020 (P.P.RAMACHANDRAN VS. STATE OF KERALA) DATED 02.03.2020 .
Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) 3237/2019 (S.SUBRAMANIAN & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KERALA) DATED 22.02.2019 .
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL