Mahendran.K vs The Secretary
2021 Latest Caselaw 10118 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

    THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                      WP(C).No.17822 OF 2013(C)


PETITIONERS:

      1        MAHENDRAN.K.
               TC 16/1025(16/1052) JAGATHY, THYCAUD,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

      2        MANU.K.
               TC 16/1025(16/1052) JAGATHY, THYCAUD,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

               BY ADV. SMT.S.MUMTAZ

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
               CORPORATION BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

      2        BHUVANENDRAN
               S/O. LATE. KRISHNAN KUTTY, K.R. BHAVAN, JAGATHY,
               THIRUVANANANTHAPURAM.


               R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)
                     ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON ON 25-
03-2021, THE COURT ON SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.17822 OF 2013(C)                    2




                                  JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25th day of March 2021

Petitioners are conducting a motor driving school within the limits of the

Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. When a construction was proposed to be put

up by the 2nd respondent in the writ petition viz., Bhuvanendran, on the basis

of Exhibit P5 permit secured from the Secretary of the corporation of

Thiruvananthapuram, petitioners have approached the Ombudsman for Local

Self Government Institutions. Evidently as per Exhibit P9 order, the

Ombudsman declined jurisdiction and relegated the petitioner to the Tribunal

constituted under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 i.e., the Tribunal for

Local Self Government Institutions. On the basis of appeal filed by the

petitioner, the Tribunal has passed Exhibit P12 order on 24.6.2013, in appeal

No.552 of 2012, by which Exhibit P5 permit granted by the Secretary of the

Thiruvananthapuram Corporation was upheld. It is thus challenging the legality

and correctness of Exhibit P12 order, this writ petition is filed.

2. I have heard learned standing counsel for Thiruvananthapuram

Corporation Sri.N.Nandakumara Menon and perused the pleadings and

materials on record.

3. The sole question to be considered is, whether any manner of

interference is warranted to Exhibit P12 order passed by the Tribunal ? On a

reference to Exhibit P5 permit granted by the Secretary of the Corporation

dated 29.9.2011, it is evident that the permit was granted for construction of

250.82 sq.meters and the permit was valid upto 27.9.2014. According to the

petitioners, the permit was granted by the Municipality, overlooking the

provisions of Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and the Kerala Municipality Building

Rules, 1999.

4. The Tribunal, after appreciating the pros and cons and the pleadings

and figures available on record, has arrived at the conclusion that the permit

granted by the Municipality was in terms of law and it was after appreciating

the entire facts and circumstances and the law involved in the subject matter,

Exhibit P12 order was passed.

5. On a perusal of Exhibit P12 order, it is quite categoric and clear that

the entire issues were surrounded on various factual circumstances and in

relation to the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. In my considered

opinion, petitioners have not established any case so as to interfere with the

order passed by the Tribunal. It is clear from the order that the Tribunal has

passed the said order taking into account the contentions put forth by the

petitioners and also assimilating the facts and circumstances available from the

documents produced and also with reference to the applicable laws. It is also

clear that the validity of the building permit granted by the Secretary of the

Corporation was over on 27.9.2014.

In that view of the matter, I do not think, petitioners have established

any case so as to interfere with Exhibit P12 order and the relief sought for by

the petitioners in the writ petition against Exhibit P5 building permit and Exhibit

P12 order is declined.

Sd/-

                                                    SHAJI P.CHALY

smv                                                      JUDGE





                            APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 P1. TRUE COPY OF THE DRIVING SCHOOL LICENCE

EXHIBIT P2 P21. TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAID FOR THE PERIOD 2009 TO 2012 IN THE NAME OF KRISHNAN KUTTY.

EXHIBIT P3 P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2879/1977

EXHIBIT P4 P4. TRUE COPY OF THE PLOT SKETCH OF THE TWO PROPERTIES.

EXHIBIT P5 P5 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING P;ERMIT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT. 29-9-11.

EXHIBIT P6 P6. TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS IN OS NO. 207/12.

EXHIBIT P7 P7 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DT. 9-4-12 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE OMBUDSMAN.

EXHIBIT P8 P8. TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DT. 29-6-12 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE OMBUDMAN.

EXHIBIT P9 P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY TGHE OMBUDSMAN IN OP NO. 500/12.

EXHIBIT P10 P10. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER.

EXHIBIT P11 P11. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER EVIDENCING THE POSSESSION.

EXHIBIT P12 P12. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO. 552/12.