Kerala High Court
Preetha Kumar vs Corporation Of Kozhikode on 26 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.5079 OF 2021(H)
PETITIONER/S:
PREETHA KUMAR,
AGED 62 YEARS,
S/O KRISHNAN,
HOUSE NO.3/34-1B,
KRISHNA PRIYA,
NAYAR MADAM PARAMBU,
NALLALAM P.O.,
KOZHIKODE-673027.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SUDHISH
SMT.M.MANJU
SHRI.MUSTHAFA V.M
RESPONDENT/S:
1 CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
BEACH ROAD, BEACH POST OFFICE,
KOZHIKODE-673032.
2 THE SECRETARY,
CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE,
BEACH ROAD, BEACH POST OFFICE,
KOZHIKODE-673032.
3 AMRILA T.,
AGED 42 YEARS,
W/O MANOJ CHANDRAN,
26/1164, LAKSHMI MANDIR,
GOVERNMENT ARTS COLLEGE P.O.,
KOZHIKODE-673018.
W.P.(C)No.5079 of 2021
2
4 MANOJ CHANDRAN,
AGED 49 YEARS,
S/O BALACHANDRAN,
26/1164, LAKSHMI MANDIR,
GOVERNMENT ARTS COLLEGE P.O.,
KOZHIKODE-673018.
R1 & R2 BY SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON, STANDING COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.5079 of 2021
3
W.P.(C)No.5079 of 2021
-------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
It is stated by the petitioner that respondents 3 and 4 are
constructing a building otherwise than in accordance with the building
rules on the strength of a permit issued to them. The petitioner,
therefore, preferred Ext.P2 representation invoking Rule 16 of the
Kerala Municipality Building Rules before the second respondent
seeking orders for recalling the building permit issued to respondents
3 and 4. It is stated by the petitioner that Ext.P2 is not being
considered on account of the pendency of O.S.No.169 of 2020 before
the Munsiff Court-II(P), Kozhikode filed by the petitioner earlier seeking
reliefs in respect of the unauthorised construction of respondents 3
and 4. The case of the petitioner is that the pendency of the suit
cannot be an impediment for the competent authority under the
building rules in discharging its statutory duty in the matter of
considering a representation in the nature of Ext.P2. The petitioner,
therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard in the writ
petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also
the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2.
W.P.(C)No.5079 of 2021
3. The petitioner concedes that he could not obtain any
interim order in O.S.No.169 of 2020. The fact that the petitioner could
not obtain an interim order in a suit instituted by him seeking relief in
respect of the unauthorised construction does not preclude the
competent authority under the building rules in considering
representations in the nature of Ext.P2.
In the said view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed
of directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P2 representation
in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioner as also
respondents 3 and 4. This shall be done within one month from the
date of production of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE
rkj
W.P.(C)No.5079 of 2021
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE PLAINT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER IN OS NUMBERED OS.NO. 169 OF
2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT
II(P) KOZHIKODE.
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 02.11.2020.
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE RECEIPT RECEIVED FROM THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 2.11.2020.
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE REQUEST PREFERRED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY (PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER) DATED 10.12.2020.
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE REPLY BY THE
SECRETARY/PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,
KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION IN FILE
NO. TP15/A6/11228/70 DATED 14.01.2021.
