IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
Friday, the 1st day of July 2022 / 10th Ashadha, 1944
CONTEMPT CASE(C) NO. 1494 OF 2021(S) IN WP(C) 17147/2020
PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN THE WPC:
ABRAHAM ISSAC, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O ISAAC ABRAHAM,
IDASSERIL HOUSE, LINK PARK ROAD, POTTAKUZHI ROAD,
PACHALAM, COCHIN-682 012.
BY ADVOCATES M/S. MANU GOVIND, MEGHA MUKUNDASWAR.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.2 IN THE WPC:
SHRI.N.S. NAISAM,
SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF KOCHI,
PARK AVENUE ROAD, PB NO.1016, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 011.
BY SRI.K. JANARDHANA SHENOY, STANDING COUNSEL
This Contempt of court case (civil) having come up for orders on
01.07.2022, the court on the same day passed the following:
P.T.O.
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Contempt of Court Case (Civil) No.1494 of 2021
[arising out of judgment dated 26.08.2020 in W.P.(C) No.17147/2020]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 01st day of July, 2022
ORDER
Sri.K.Janardhana Shenoy, learned Standing counsel for the Kochi Municipal Corporation, appearing for the respondent Municipal Corporation Secretary, would submit that the application of the petitioner for demolition of the subject construction has been kept pending since application for regularisation, made by the building owner, was pending before the Senior Town Planner. The building owner was granted permission only to construct a dormitory and he altered it to use as a godown and application for regularisation was rejected by the Senior Town Planner, which was challenged by the builder in a writ proceedings, in which the rejection of the plea of regularisation was remitted and the matter is now pending consideration before the Town Planner, for passing orders, consequent to the remit. That, after passing orders on the remit, necessary orders will be passed on the application of the petitioner, as mentioned above.
2. Sri.Manu Govind, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, even now, neither the building owner nor the respondent Cont. of Court Case (C) No.1494/2021 2 Municipal Corporation have a case that the building owner has any valid and lawful licence to use the building as a godown and that, under the guise of the remit, the respondent Municipal Corporation is, even now, permitting the building owner to illegally use the altered building as a godown, etc.
3. The respondent Municipal Corporation Secretary will immediately explain this Court as to whether the building owner has been given any licence or permission to use the altered structure as a godown and, if not, as to under what circumstances the Municipal Corporation is permitting the building owner to use the building as a godown.
4. So long as the building owner does not have any valid and lawful permission to use the building as a godown, it may not be legal for the respondent Municipal Corporation to permit the use of the building as a godown merely citing the pendency of the application for regularisation, submitted by the building owner, pending before the Town Planner.
5. The Registry will show the name of Sri.Manu Govind, learned Advocate for the petitioner, in the cause list.
List on 13.07.2022.
Hand Over a copy of this order to both sides.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE Skk//01072021 01-07-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar