IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 21906 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
V.GIYAP
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O RAMAKRISHNA VIKRAMA, SECRETARY,
ADVISORY COMMITTEE,
KAVINKULANGARA SREE BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE,
KARIKKAKAM.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695007
BY ADVS.
P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)
B.THARIF
RESPONDENTS:
1 OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION
SAPHALLYAM COMPLEX, PALAYAM,
UNIVERSITY P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695034
2 THE SECRETARY
CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KADAKAMPALLY AREA OFFICE, ANAYARA.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695029
3 SHANMUGHAM CHETTIAR
S/O KOCHU VELU CHETTIAR, SARITHALAYAM,
TC 91/1453, KARIKKAKAM.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695007
BY ADV N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)
SRI.P.K MANOJKUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 21906 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 27th day of July, 2022 The petitioner, who is the Secretary of the Advisory Committee of the Kavinkulangara Sree Bhagavathy Temple, has approached this Court seeking to set aside Ext.P5 and to direct the 2nd respondent not to act on Ext.P5 order passed by the 1st respondent-Ombudsman.
2. The petitioner states that the 3 rd respondent and certain others have filed a suit against the petitioner and the Temple Administrative Committee Members, for a mandatory injunction to demolish the unauthorised construction of the compound wall of the Temple. The said suit was dismissed as per Ext.P1 judgment.
3. The petitioner states that subsequently, the 3rd respondent filed a complaint before the 1 st respondent- Ombudsman. The Ombudsman found that there is unauthorised construction of a shed and directed that the shed be demolished within seven days.
WP(C) NO. 21906 OF 2022 3
4. The petitioner states that the petitioner has preferred an application for regularisation of the shed on 14.07.2022 as evidenced by Ext.P10. If the temporary structure is removed before considering their application for regularisation, it will cause undue hardship.
5. Standing Counsel representing the 2nd respondent entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel submitted that if the petitioner has preferred an application for regularisation of the building construction, the 2nd respondent has no objection in considering it in accordance with law.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the 2nd respondent. In view of the nature of the relief to be granted in the writ petition, notice to the 3rd respondent is dispensed with.
7. The petitioner has made certain construction, which is said to be illegal and unauthorised. The petitioner therefore has submitted an application for regularisation of the construction as evidenced by Ext.P10 dated 14.07.2022. As WP(C) NO. 21906 OF 2022 4 the application for regularisation of unauthorised construction is of a statutory nature, it is only just and proper that the competent authority decide such application in accordance with law. In the meanwhile, if the 2 nd respondent proceeds to demolish the unauthorised construction pursuant to Ext.P5, that will affect the statutory right of the petitioner to invoke a remedy of regularisation.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P10 application for regularisation and take appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent. Till a decision is taken on Ext.P10, coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 shall stand deferred.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk WP(C) NO. 21906 OF 2022 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21906/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS NO 1243/2014 OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT-III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 30-06-2018. Exhibit P2 COPY OF DECREE IN OS NO 1243/2014 OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT-III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 30-06-2018 Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN OP 08/2022 DATED 03-01-2022 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 20-01-2022. Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE ORDER IN COMPLAINT NO 08/2022 DATED 14-02-2022.
Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09-08-2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11-03-
2022 FORWARDED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P8 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19-03-
2022 FORWARDED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P9 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18-05-2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY APPLICATION FOR REGULARISATION DATED 14.07.2022 FORWARDED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT NO.2458 DATED 14.07.2022 RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL