Titty Abraham K.A vs Kottayam Municipality
2021 Latest Caselaw 10561 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

    MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 8TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                         WP(C).No.2476 OF 2021(H)


PETITIONER:

               TITTY ABRAHAM K.A
               AGED 52 YEARS
               SON OF K.T.ABRAHAM, KOLATHTHAITHARA HOUSE,
               NEELAMPEROOR P.O., PIN-686534, NEELAMPEROOR KARA,
               NEELAMPEROOR VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA
               DISTRICT.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN
               SRI.M.N.MANMADAN
               SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED
               SMT.P.SEENA

RESPONDENTS:

      1        KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY
               POST BOX NO.200, JOYEES ARCADE, YMCA ROAD,
               KOTTAYAM, PIN-686001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

      2        ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
               NATTAKAM ZONAL OFFICE OF KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY,
               PIN-686013, NATTAKAM, KOTTAYAM.

               R1-2 BY    SHRI.SIBY CHENAPPADY, SC,
                          KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                    SATHISH NINAN, J.
          ==================
               W. P. (C) No.2476 of 2021
          ==================
          Dated this the 29th day of March, 2021

                       JUDGMENT

With regard to the building permit application

dated 07.09.2020 submitted by the petitioner, the

Municipality gave an intimation-Ext.P5 dated

21.10.2020 seeking compliance with certain

requirements as mentioned therein. The petitioner

submitted an explanation to the same, a copy of

which has been produced and marked as Ext.P6 in the

writ petition. The Municipality has now issued

communication stating that the application for

building permit is rejected consequent to non-

compliance with the requirements as called for in

Ext.P5.

2. Evidently Ext.P6 explanation offered by the

petitioner has not been considered while passing

Ext.P7 order. The Municipality has to consider the

explanation offered by the petitioner and pass

appropriate orders.

W. P. (C) No.2476 of 2021

In the result, this writ petition is allowed.

Ext.P7 order dated 24.12.2020 is quashed. The

Municipality shall consider Ext.P6 explanation

offered by the petitioner to Ext.P5 notice and pass

appropriate orders. The petitioner shall be given

an opportunity of being heard before orders are

passed.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy// P.S. to Judge WP(C).No.2476 OF 2021(H)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED BEARING NO.952/2014 OF THE PRL.S.R.O., KOTTAYAM IN THE NAME OF THE FIRST PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PERTAINING TO EXHIBIT P1 PROPERTY.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION BEARING NO.NBA-69/20-21 DATED 30.9.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 21.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 11.12.2020.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER REFUSING THE PERMIT.

-----