Sherly Thomas vs Trippoonithura Municipality
2021 Latest Caselaw 11017 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

   WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                       WP(C).No.6558 OF 2021(T)


PETITIONER:

               SHERLY THOMAS
               AGED 52 YEARS, W/O. THOMAS
               PERUMBAYIL HOUSE, THEKKUMBHAGAM, TRIPPOONITHURA PIN
               682 301

               BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH)

RESPONDENTS:

      1        TRIPPOONITHURA MUNICIPALITY
               THRIPPOONITHURA, THRIPPOONITHURA P.O., REP.BY THE
               SECRETARY, TRIPPOONITHURA MUNICIPALITY,
               THRIPPOONITHURA, THRIPPONNITHURA P.O. 682 301

      2        THE SECRETARY
               TRIPPOONITHURA MUNICIPALITY, THRIPPOONITHURA,
               THRIPPOONITHURA P.O. 682 301

      3        HEALTH SUPERVISOR
               TRIPPOONITHURA MUNICIPALITY, THRIPPOONITHURA,
               THRIPPOONITHURA P.O. 682 301

      4        HEALTH INSPECTOR
               TRIPPOONITHURA MUNICIPALITY, THRIPPOONITHURA,
               THRIPPOONITHURA P.O. 682 301

               BY ADV.C.V.MANUVILSAN (SC)
               BY ADV.SMT.RENJITA.G, GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD            ON
07.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.6558 OF 2021(T)

                                        2




                           W.P.(C) No.6558 of 2021
                      ---------------------------------------


                               JUDGMENT

Petitioner preferred Ext.P6 application before the second

respondent seeking permission to run a business of selling packed

foods in her residential premises. On the said application, the

petitioner has been issued Ext.P8 communication by the third

respondent stating that permission cannot be granted since the

building of the petitioner is one intended for residential purpose. The

case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that in the light of

sub-rule (2) of Rule 25 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019

(the Rules) a small house-hold business could be conducted in a

residential premises. The petitioner, therefore, impugns Ext.P8

communication on that ground.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. It appears that Ext.P8 communication was issued

without taking note of sub-rule (2) of Rule 25 of the Rules.

In the circumstances, writ petition is disposed of setting

aside Ext.P8 communication, and directing the second respondent to WP(C).No.6558 OF 2021(T)

consider Ext.P6 application preferred by the petitioner afresh, having

regard to sub-rule (2) of Rule 25 of the Rules. This shall be done within

two weeks.

Sd/-

                                           P.B.SURESH KUMAR

Mn                                                JUDGE
 WP(C).No.6558 OF 2021(T)





                               APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1                 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED

11.11.2020 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 16.3.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE RENEWAL FEE RECEIPT DATED 20.8.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED NIL ALONG WITH THE BUILDING PLAN SUBMITTED ON 23.1.2021 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.2.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.2.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 24.2.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6.3.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE