R. Raveendranath vs Thiruvananthapuram Corporation

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 9203 Ker
Judgement Date : 10 August, 2022

Kerala High Court
R. Raveendranath vs Thiruvananthapuram Corporation on 10 August, 2022
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
     WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1944
                         WP(C) NO. 22405 OF 2022
PETITIONERS

     1        R. RAVEENDRANATH,
              AGED 61 YEARS
              S/O. LATE K. RAMAN NAIR, LEKSHMI VILASOM,
              KUDAPPANAKUNNU VILLAGE, PEROORKADA.P.O.,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PIN 695 005.
     2        R. MOHANAKUMAR,
              S/O. LATE K. RAMAN NAIR, AGED 59 YEARS, LEKSHMI VILASOM,
              KUDAPPANAKUNNU VILLAGE, PEROORKADA.P.O.,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PIN - 695 005.
     3        R. SUBHAKUMAR,
              S/O. LATE K. RAMAN NAIR, AGED 55 YEARS, LEKSHMI VILASOM,
              KUDAPPANAKUNNU VILLAGE, PEROORKADA.P.O.,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PIN - 695 005.
     4        L. UDAYAKUMARI,
              D/O. LATE K. RAMAN NAIR, AGED 52 YEARS, LEKSHMI VILASOM,
              KUDAPPANAKUNNU VILLAGE, PEROORKADA.P.O.,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PIN - 695 005.
              (PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 REPRESENTED BY E.R.JAHAD A, MAJEED
              MANAGING PARTNER, M/S SPARROW CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND
              CONSULTANCY)
              BY ADVS.
              M.NARENDRA KUMAR (SR)
              HARSHADEV M.



RESPONDENTS:

     1        THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION,
              OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS
              SECRETARY.
     2        THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
              MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001
 WP(C) NO.22405 OF 2022
                                 2




            BY ADVS.
            N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)
            SHRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,TVPM CORPORATION


     THIS     WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON   10.08.2022,   THE   COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.22405 OF 2022
                                     3


                                JUDGMENT

Dated this the 10th day of August, 2022 The petitioners, who have obtained Ext.P1 Building Permit for construction of Basement of Floor 1 and 2, Ground Floor, Floors 1 to 10 and Terrace Floor in Thiruvananthapuram, have approached this Court seeking to quash Exts. P4 to P6 and to direct the respondents to issue renewal of Building Permit based on Ext.P1.

2. The petitioners state that after obtaining a valid Building Permit and paying the prescribed fee, the petitioners started building construction and 90% of the construction is completed. When the petitioners applied for renewal of Building Permit as per Ext.P2, the 1st respondent directed the petitioners to pay a renewal fee of `24,190/-. The petitioners paid the said amount. Subsequently, the petitioners were issued with Ext.P3 letter dated 24.06.2019 demanding `45,17,935/-. The respondents thereafter issued Ext.P4 notice dated 27.05.2022, WP(C) NO.22405 OF 2022 4 reducing the amount demanded to `27,37,880/-.

3. The petitioners submit that the petitioners have obtained Building Permit, after paying the prescribed fee, which was calculated as per the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. The petitioners cannot be mulcted with further liability.

4. The petitioners submit that the petitioners are disputing the amount claimed by the respondents. Pending the dispute, if the Building Permit is not renewed, the petitioners, who have invested huge amount of money in the project, would be put to irreparable loss and injury.

5. Standing Counsel entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel submitted that the initial Building Permit was issued without properly ascertaining the Floor Area Ratio. When the application for renewal of Building Permit was resumed, it was noted that the petitioners, taking into consideration Floor Area Ratio, have to pay `27,37,880/-. Without the petitioners paying the said amount, if Building Permit is renewed, there is a likelihood that the petitioners will WP(C) NO.22405 OF 2022 5 try to escape from payment of the said money. The proposed construction involves residential flats also. In the circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief, asserted the Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

7. From the pleadings and arguments, it is evident that the petitioners have started the construction of a multi-storied building, after obtaining a valid Building Permit. The petitioners had paid the licence fee of `46,070/- while applying for the Building Permit.

8. The petitioners applied for renewal of Building Permit. In the meanwhile, the petitioners were issued with Ext.P3 notice demanding an amount of `45,17,935/-. The petitioners submitted objection to the said demand. Thereafter, Ext.P4 was issued to the petitioners revising the demand to `27,37,880/-.

WP(C) NO.22405 OF 2022 6

9. The petitioners have made objection to the amount so calculated by the respondents. This Court is of the view that taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the respondents shall consider the objection raised by the petitioners. Pending consideration of the objections of the respondents, if the Building project of the petitioners is stalled due to non renewal of Building Permit, the petitioners would be prejudiced.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to deposit with the respondents an amount of `12 lakhs within a period of one month. The petitioners shall submit their objection to Exts.P4 to P6 in writing to the Secretary to the Corporation. The respondents shall consider the objections and take a final decision on the demand, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Depending upon the order to be passed by the respondents, the petitioners will be liable to pay the balance WP(C) NO.22405 OF 2022 7 amount, if any, found due. The petitioners shall file their objections within two weeks and the Secretary shall pass orders thereon within a further period of 30 days. In the meanwhile, if the petitioners deposit an amount of `12 lakhs as directed above, the respondents shall pass orders on the application for renewal of the building, within a period of two weeks. The said amount of Rs.12 lakhs would be adjusted/refunded (as the case may be) depending on the decision to be taken by the respondents on the objections to be filed by the petitioners.

sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh WP(C) NO.22405 OF 2022 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22405/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.E5/BA/046/14 DATED 24.01.2015 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28.07.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE RESPONDENTS Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. E5/89094/18 DATED 24.06.2009 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS Exhibit P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 04.07.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AGAINST EXHIBIT- P3 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE THE INTIMATION NO.

E10/E5/89094/18 DATED 27.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION NO. NO.

E10/E5/89094/18 DATED 26.06.2020 SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.

E10/E5/89094/18DATED 03.07.2022 SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT