K.K.Parameswaran vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 6046 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

 FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 30TH MAGHA,1942

                  WP(C).No.7901 OF 2020(K)


PETITIONERS:

     1       K.K.PARAMESWARAN, AGED 76 YEARS
             S/O. KESAVAN, KOLLERITHARA HOUSE, CHUTTUPAD
             KARA, EDAPPILLY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

     2       K.P. ANILKUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS
             S/O. K.K. PARAMESWARAN, KOLLERITHARA HOUSE,
             CHUTTUPAD KARA, EDAPPILLY, ERNAKULAM
             DISTRICT.

     3       K.P. ARUNKUMAR,AGED 40 YEARS
             S/O. K.K. PARAMESWARAN, KOLLERITHARA HOUSE,
             CHUTTUPAD KARA, EDAPPILLY, ERNAKULAM
             DISTRICT.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN
             SRI.K.S.RAJESH
             JACOB GEORGE
             SRI.M.SUKUMARAN

RESPONDENTS:

     1       STATE OF KERALA,
             REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
             PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
             695001.

     2       THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
             PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL HIGHWAY,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
 W.P.(C) No.7901 of 2020         ..2..




       3      THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
              PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL HIGHWAY (B)
              SECTION, KODUNGALLUR, PIN-680664.

       4      THE SECRETARY,
              VARAPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VARAPUZHA P.O.,
              ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683517.

       5      THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF NEW DELHI,
              REPRESENTED BY THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, REGIONAL
              OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF
              INDIA, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT,
              MAVELIPURAM, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030.

              R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
              R4 BY SRI.ASHOK B.SHENOY, SC, VARAPUZHA GRAMA
              PANCHAYAT
              R5 BY M/S.M.V.KINI AND CO., SC, NHAI

OTHER PRESENT:

              GP. K.J.MANURAJ

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 19.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.7901 of 2020                 ..3..




                       W.P.(C) No.7901 of 2020
                    --------------------------------------

                               JUDGMENT

Petitioners are running a hotel on a land abutting

National Highway 66 since 2002. As there was no lift facility in the

hotel, they installed a lift in the hotel building. The lift was provided

without getting permission from the Panchayat. After installing the

lift, the petitioners preferred an application for regularization of the

installation. On the said application, the Panchayat issued Ext.P3

communication to the petitioners pointing out a few defects in the

application for regularization. One of the defects pointed out by the

Panchayat in Ext.P3 communication is that the petitioners have to

obtain No-objection Certificate from the State Highway Authority for

the said purpose. Ext.P3 communication has been issued to the

petitioners on 10.02.2020. Later, on 27.02.2020, the Secretary of

the Panchayat himself addressed a letter to the State Highway

Authority namely, the third respondent requiring him to intimate

whether No-objection Certificate of the State Highway authority is to

be insisted for the purpose of considering the application for

regularisation. Ext.P6 is the letter issued by the Secretary of the

Panchayat in this regard to the third respondent. The third W.P.(C) No.7901 of 2020 ..4..

respondent has not responded to Ext.P6 letter and the writ petition

was filed in the circumstances seeking orders quashing the

direction in Ext.P3 communication compelling the petitioners to

produce the No-objection Certificate of the third respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

learned Government Pleader as also the learned Standing Counsel

for the Panchayat.

3. It is seen that a counter affidavit has been filed by

the third respondent in the matter stating that No Objection of the

State Highway Authority is not required for the purpose of

considering the application for building permit.

In the light of the said counter affidavit, I am of the view

that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the Panchayat to

consider the application submitted by the petitioners for

regularization without insisting the No-objection Certificate of the

third respondent. Ordered accordingly. The petitioners, however,

shall cure all other defects noted in Ext.P3.

Sd/-

                                                  P.B.SURESH KUMAR
                                                        JUDGE
ds 19.02.2021
 W.P.(C) No.7901 of 2020             ..5..




                             APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1                THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY
                          THE PANCHAYAT DATED 18/01/2020.

EXHIBIT P2                THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
                          NO.A3-565/2020 DATED 30/01/2020.

EXHIBIT P3                HE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
                          NO.A3-565/2020 DATED 10/02/2020.

EXHIBIT P4                THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLETION PLAN
                          DATED NIL.

EXHIBIT P5                THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
                          NO.A3-565/2020 DATED 27/02/2020.

EXHIBIT P6                THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.
                          A3-565/2020 DATED 27/02/2020.

EXHIBIT P7                THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
                          NO.27817/2018 DATED 07/09/2018.

EXHIBIT P8                THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
                          NO.17794/2018 DATED 26/07/2018.


RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT R3(A)             TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A3-
                          565/2020 DATED 27.02.2020.