Dr.Scott Chacko John vs Thrissur Muncipal Corporation
2021 Latest Caselaw 18319 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
    TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 16TH BHADRA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 15578 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          DR.SCOTT CHACKO JOHN
          AGED 45 YEARS
          S/O. C. JOHNKUTTY, H.NO. 1, S.B.I COLONY,
          VENNALA POST, COCHIN - 682028.

          BY ADVS.
          M.SASINDRAN
          SREEHARI INDUKALADHARAN



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THRISSUR MUNCIPAL CORPORATION
          MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, THEKINKADU MAIDAN, THRISSUR
          DISTRICT, PIN - 680001 - REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

    2     THE SECRETARY
          MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THRISSUR,MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD,
          THEKINKADU MAIDAN, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680001

    3     THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
          THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD,
          THEKINKADU MAIDAN, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680001

    4     JOSE GEORGE
          S/O. N.V. VARKEY, NEDUMATTOM HOUSE, INCHAKUNDU P.O,
          THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680312.

          BY ADVS.
          SHRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR CORPORATION
          SABU M. PHILIP




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 15578 OF 2021

                                          2


                                   JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

i. Call for the records leading to Exhibit P6 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari. ii. Declare that, Exhibit P6 is illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation. Though

notice was taken to the 4th respondent and duly served, there is no

appearance for the 4th respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner had constructed an apartment complex in 4.07 Ares in Survey

no.405/2-17 of Chembukavu Village within the jurisdiction of the

Thrissur Corporation. It is submitted that the building permit was issued

on 04.05.2018 as per the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. The

occupancy certificate was issued on 05.01.2020. It is submitted that the

4th respondent had purchased an apartment in the complex and had

submitted a complaint before the Municipality alleging violation of the

2019 Rules. It is submitted that without issuing any prior notice, Ext.P6

demolition notice was issued to the petitioner by the Municipality on WP(C) NO. 15578 OF 2021

the ground that unauthorised constructions have been made by the

petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner was entitled to be put on notice and heard before a

demolition notice in the nature of Ext.P6 could have been passed. The

learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the construction of

the building was in accordance with the permit granted under the 1999

Rules and the invocation of the 2019 Rules is therefore absolutely

unwarranted.

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents

submits that the petitioner had effected certain unauthorised

constructions in violation of the 2019 Rules which had resulted in Ext.P6

order.

6. However, on a consideration of Ext.P6 order, I notice that what

is referred to in the same is only a legal notice submitted by the 4 th

respondent and that report of the Overseer and it appears that the

petitioner had not been put on notice before being required to demolish

the alleged unauthorised constructions, I am of the opinion that the

petitioner was liable to be heard and his contentions ought to have been WP(C) NO. 15578 OF 2021

considered before an order in the nature of Ext.P6 was issued.

This writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

Ext.P6 notice will be deemed to be a show cause notice issued to the

petitioner. The petitioner would be permitted to submit his objections to

Ext.P6 and he shall also be heard and be permitted to submit his

explanations to the violations as pointed out in Ext.P6. If the petitioner

submits an objection pointing out his explanations to the violations

pointed out in Ext.P6 within a period of two weeks from today, the

petitioner as well as the 4th respondent and any other affected parties

shall be put on notice and heard and an appropriate decision shall be

taken by the respondents on the issue in accordance with law.

Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of one month from

the date of the hearing.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE SVP WP(C) NO. 15578 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15578/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO. DW4-

BA-(57995)/2019 DATED 16.03.2019.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DATED 11.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2620/2019 OF S.R.O. THRISSUR DATED 25.10.2019.

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION.

Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.04.2021 IN COMPLAINT NO.40/2021, 41/2021, 42/2021.OF THE KERALA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY

Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DW4/13851/2021 DATED 01.07.2021.