Prasanth Arakkal vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 10740 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

     TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                        WP(C).No.4437 OF 2017(D)


PETITIONER :

                PRASANTH ARAKKAL,
                AGED 45 YEARS,
                PROPRIETOR, ZEN OUTDOOT ADS,
                THEKKANATH BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR,
                SOUTH OVERBRIDGE

                BY ADVS.
                ADV.ANZIL SALIM FOR ADV.SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
                SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA
                SRI.M.B.SOORI


RESPONDENTS :

      1         STATE OF KERALA,
                REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
                DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001

      2         THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN,
                REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
                PARK AVENUE, KOCHI - 682 017

                R1 BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL

                R2 BY ADV. SRI.JIBU P.THOMAS, SC, COCHIN CORPORATION


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD          ON
30.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.4437 OF 2017(D)

                                   2




                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 30th day of March 2021

Petitioner challenges Ext.P2 order directing demolition of an

unauthorised construction. The alleged unauthorised construction is

the hoarding put up in the property of one Mr.Majeed with whom

petitioner claims to have a lease agreement, which is produced as

Ext.P1. It is the case of the petitioner that he was unaware about the

unauthorised nature of the hoarding and without noticing the same, he

had entered into the agreement and displayed the advertisement.

Immediately on issuance of Ext.P2, petitioner has approached this

Court and a status-quo order was obtained on 09.02.2017.

2. In the meantime, petitioner filed an application for

regularisation of the unauthorised construction in accordance with law.

However, the same has not been considered due to the pendency of

this writ petition. Even though petitioner has pleaded that he has filed

an application for regularisation, copy of the said application has not

been produced. However, by letter dated 21.07.2017, petitioner was

informed by the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Corporation that WP(C).No.4437 OF 2017(D)

his application cannot be considered due to the pendency of this writ

petition.

3. Though the remedy of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P2

is before the Appellate Tribunal, taking into consideration the fact that

this writ petition was admitted as early as in February, 2017 and the

same has been pending consideration, I deem it appropriate that this

writ petition be disposed of with directions.

Accordingly I direct the 2nd respondent to consider the

application for regularisation filed by the petitioner on 02.07.2016 and

pass orders as expeditiously as possible. Subject to the outcome of

the said consideration, Ext.P2 shall be kept in abeyance till a decision

is taken on the application for regularisation. If the application for

regularisation is allowed, Ext.P2 shall stand set aside as redundant

and in the event of the application for regularisation being dismissed,

Ext.P2 shall revive and will be implemented without delay.

The writ petition is allowed as above.

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE

RKM WP(C).No.4437 OF 2017(D)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 06.02.2016 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE LANDLORD

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E4P1/1375/16 DATED 31.05.2016

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STRUCTURAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CHARTERED ENGINEER

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE STRUCTURAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CHARTERED ENGINEER

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S LANDLORD BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT