Kerala High Court
Aneesh Babu C. Aged 38 Years vs The Secretary
Author: K.Surendra Mohan
Bench: K.Surendra Mohan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935
WP(C).No. 15216 of 2013 (B)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:
--------------------------------
ANEESH BABU C. AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED, DIRECTOR
TIXI DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT LTD
MALAPPURAM ROAD, KOTTAKKAL-676503, R/A.CHERATAIL HOUSE
KOTT TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-676101
BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------------------
1. THE SECRETARY
PONMALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MALAPPURAM-676503
2. PONMALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
CHAPPANANGADI P O, MALAPPURAM-676503
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KOTTAKAL-676503
MALAPPURAM DIST
4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD SECTION, OTHUKUNGAL
MALAPPURAM DIST, PIN-676578
R1,R 2 BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER
R3 & R4 BY SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 15216 of 2013 (B)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXT.P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF
THE PETITIONER DTD 3/7/2012
EXT.P2:-TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT AND APPROVED PLAN ISSUED BY
THE IST RESPONDENT
EXT.P3:-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD 1/12/2012 ISSUED BY THE IST
RESPONDENT
EXT.P4:-TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIOENR TO THE IST
RESPONDENT DTD 14/12/2012
EXT.P5:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 21/12/2012 OF THE IST RESPONDENT
EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.7.2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
------------------------------
/TRUE COPY/
PS TO JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN,J.
-------------------------
W. P (C) No. 15216 of 2013
--------------------------
Dated this the 5th December, 2013
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed challenging revocation of the building permit granted to the petitioner by Ext.P5, which has been issued by the 1st respondent. I notice that the petitioner has statutory remedy by way of appeal against Ext.P5, which has not been exhausted by him. Therefore, I am not satisfied that any interference with Ext.P5 is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Apart from the above, Ext.P5 is dated 21.12.2012. This writ petition is filed only on 14.6.2013. There is no explanation for the delay, that has been occasioned. Ext.P5 order has become final. So, it is not liable to be called in question in this writ petition that has been filed with such unexplained delay.
3. Advocate E.S.M.Kabeer appears for respondents 1 and 2. Advocate Sajeev Kumar K.Gopal appears for respondents 3 and 4. According to respondents 3 and 4, Ext.P6 order was issued for converting the existing LT W. P (C) No. 15216 of 2013 2 3phase 4wire line (one span) to UG cable. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the work has already been executed and completed. Therefore, the objections made in Ext.P2 do not survive at present. According to respondents 1 and 2, who have filed a separate counter affidavit, O.S No.319/2012 has been filed complaining about the construction made by the petitioner. It is pointed out that the No Objection Certificate issued by the Electricity Board has not been produced by the petitioner.
4. The case of the petitioner is that since the objections on the basis of Ext.P5 was issued are no longer subsisting, the entire matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the 1st respondent.
5. It is for the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent, if reconsideration is necessary or permissible. I do not consider it expedient to pass any orders in this regard. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE ma