IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 19188 OF 2014
PETITIONER:
DR. S. VIDYA PRAKASH, AGED 54 YEARS,
S/O.K.S.PRAKASAM, AKKARAKKATTIL HOUSE,
CIVIL STATION P.O., KOZHIKODE-20.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA
SRI.P.T.ABHILASH
RESPONDENTS:
1 KOZHIKODE CORPORATION
BEECH ROAD, KOZHIZKODE-673 020,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, BEECH ROAD, KOZHIZKODE-673 020.
3 TOWN PLANNING INSPECTOR
KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, BEECH ROAD, KOZHIZKODE-673 020.
BY ADV SRI.K.D.BABU,SC, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 19188 OF 2014
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C).No. 19188 of 2014
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 06th day of July, 2022
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:
"(i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the operation of Exts.P8 and P12 orders of the respondents;
(ii) issue any appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the respondents have issued Exts.P3, P8 and P12 orders, without any application of mind and arbitrarily;
(iii) issue such other writ, order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."[SIC]
2. It is the case of the petitioner that, when Ext.P3 notice was issued, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 and when Ext.P6 was issued, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7. Thereafter, when the petitioner received Ext.P8, the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 WP(C) NO. 19188 OF 2014 3 explanation. Without considering the explanations submitted by the petitioner, Ext.P12 order is passed.
This is the sum and substance of the argument of the petitioner.
3. Heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent.
4. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions in the writ petition. The Standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that, several opportunities were given to the petitioner. The premises of the petitioner was inspected by the officers of the 1 st respondent. Thereafter it was convinced that there is violation and hence Ext.P12 order is passed. The Standing counsel submitted that there is nothing to interfere with Ext.P12 order.
5. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents. This Court also perused Ext.P12 order. From a perusal of Ext.P12 order, it is WP(C) NO. 19188 OF 2014 4 clear that the contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P9 is not at all considered. The petitioner has got a grievance that the inspection of the premises is conducted without giving notice to the petitioner. If that is the case, there can be a direction to the Corporation authorities to inspect the property once again and thereafter give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and can decide the matter afresh. To facilitate the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders, Ext.P12 can be set aside.
Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:
i. Ext.P12 is set aside.
ii. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider
the matter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
iii. Before taking a final decision, the 1 st respondent will inspect the property with notice to the petitioner.
WP(C) NO. 19188 OF 2014 5 iv. The above exercise should be completed by the 1st respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
v. Till final orders are passed, the status quo as on today will continue.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN DM JUDGE WP(C) NO. 19188 OF 2014 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19188/2014 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXT.P1.TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 18/5/2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P2.TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIFICATION AND REPORT OF THE PROPOSED SHEET ROOR FOR LEAK PROOFING CERTIED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT INCORPORATED ALONG WITH EXT.P1.
EXT.P3.TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3/12/2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESSPNDENT EXT.P5.TRUE COPY OF EXPLANATION DTED 10/12/2012 OFFERED BY THE PETITITONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO EXT.P3.
EXT.P5.TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.0113639 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P6.TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED NIL ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P7.TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 26/6/2013 SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P8.TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER DATED 31/10/2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P8(A).TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 31/10/2013 INCORPORATED ALONG WITH EXT.P8.
EXT.P9.TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION WP(C) NO. 19188 OF 2014 7 DATED 15/11/2013 OFFERED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P9(A).TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.0167375 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P10.TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED NIL ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P11.TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 16/1/2014 SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P12.TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/6/2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE