President, Roots Enclave ... vs Baby Sebastian And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 14921 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
     THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 17616 OF 2011
PETITIONERS:

          PRESIDENT, ROOTS ENCLAVE APARTMENT OWNER'S
          WELFARE ASSOCIATION,REPRESENTED BY,
          RANJINI.M.RAVI,REG.NO.508/08,ROOTS ENCLAVE, SRM
          ROAD,LISSIE JUNCTION,COCHIN-682018.
          BY ADV SRI.P.N.MOHANAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1     BABY SEBASTIAN, APARNA ADVERTISING
          44/72,SRM ROAD,LISSIE JUNCTION,COCHIN-682018.[DELETED
          AND SUBSTITUED]
          R1 [SUBSTITUTED] BY SMT. ANNAMMA, W/O.BABY SEBASTIAN,
          APARANA ADVERTISING, 44/72, SRM ROAD, LISSIE JUNCTION,
          COCHIN.
          THE NAME OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT SHOWN IN THE CAUSE TITLE
          OF WP(C) IS DELETED AND NEW RESPONDENT IS SUBSTITUTED
          AS 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 5.9.11 IN
          I.A.NO.14551/11.
    2     CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REP.BY SECRETARY
          COCHIN-681028.
    3     THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER
          CORPORATION OF COCHIN, COCHIN-682018.
          BY ADVS.
          R1 BY SRI.R.BINDU SASTHAMANGALAM
                SRI.PRASANTH M.P.


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.17616/2011                       2




                                       JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to issue a stop memo to the first respondent to discontinue the construction till the 1st respondent comply the relevant Building Rules for construction and parking.

ii) Declare that the construction by the 1 st respondent is illegal, unauthorized and against the provisions of the prevailing Building Rules.

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2 nd respondent to produce before this Honorable Court, the relevant file leading to issue building construction permit to the first respondent in SRM Road beginning from Banerji Road.

iv) Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. The contention advanced by the petitioner is that 1 st respondent is

carrying out construction of a commercial building overlooking the provisions of

the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. Allegedly the construction carried out

by the 1st respondent is within the limits of the Corporation of Kochi. According to

the petitioner, since it is a high-rise building having a height of more than 10

meters, provisions of rule 24 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999

should have been followed and sufficient rear yard and front yard should be

provided and having not done so, the construction cannot be permitted to be

continued. It was thus seeking appropriate reliefs as extracted above, the writ

petition was filed.

3. First respondent has filed an elaborate counter affidavit basically

contending that the building belongs to the wife of the 1 st respondent,

construction was completed, occupancy certificate was secured, building number

was allotted and 1st respondent's wife has paid property tax to the Corporation of

Cochin and therefore, nothing survives in the writ petition since the basic relief

sought for by the petitioner was seeking a direction to the 1 st respondent to stop

the construction activities.

4. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri.C.P.Sabari representing

Adv.Sri.P.N.Mohanan, learned standing counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent

Sri.Prasanth.M.P. and perused the pleadings and materials on record.

5. A detailed elaboration of the matter is not required since it is quite clear

and evident from the contentions advanced by the 1 st respondent and the

documents produced along with the counter affidavit that the construction was

completed and all consequential proceedings were undertaken by the 1 st

respondent and property tax was received from the wife of the 1 st respondent by

the Corporation of Kochi after issuing occupancy certificate and assigning building

number.

Therefore, virtually the prayers sought for in the writ petition has become

infructuous and the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.

Sd/-

                                                     SHAJI P.CHALY

smv                                                       JUDGE