R. Raveendranath vs Thiruvananthapuram Corporation
2022 Latest Caselaw 9203 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
     WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1944
                         WP(C) NO. 22405 OF 2022
PETITIONERS

     1        R. RAVEENDRANATH,
              AGED 61 YEARS
              S/O. LATE K. RAMAN NAIR, LEKSHMI VILASOM,
              KUDAPPANAKUNNU VILLAGE, PEROORKADA.P.O.,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PIN 695 005.
     2        R. MOHANAKUMAR,
              S/O. LATE K. RAMAN NAIR, AGED 59 YEARS, LEKSHMI VILASOM,
              KUDAPPANAKUNNU VILLAGE, PEROORKADA.P.O.,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PIN - 695 005.
     3        R. SUBHAKUMAR,
              S/O. LATE K. RAMAN NAIR, AGED 55 YEARS, LEKSHMI VILASOM,
              KUDAPPANAKUNNU VILLAGE, PEROORKADA.P.O.,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PIN - 695 005.
     4        L. UDAYAKUMARI,
              D/O. LATE K. RAMAN NAIR, AGED 52 YEARS, LEKSHMI VILASOM,
              KUDAPPANAKUNNU VILLAGE, PEROORKADA.P.O.,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PIN - 695 005.
              (PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 REPRESENTED BY E.R.JAHAD A, MAJEED
              MANAGING PARTNER, M/S SPARROW CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND
              CONSULTANCY)
              BY ADVS.
              M.NARENDRA KUMAR (SR)
              HARSHADEV M.



RESPONDENTS:

     1        THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION,
              OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS
              SECRETARY.
     2        THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
              MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001
 WP(C) NO.22405 OF 2022
                                 2




            BY ADVS.
            N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)
            SHRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,TVPM CORPORATION


     THIS     WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON   10.08.2022,   THE   COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.22405 OF 2022
                                     3


                                JUDGMENT

Dated this the 10th day of August, 2022

The petitioners, who have obtained Ext.P1 Building

Permit for construction of Basement of Floor 1 and 2, Ground

Floor, Floors 1 to 10 and Terrace Floor in

Thiruvananthapuram, have approached this Court seeking to

quash Exts. P4 to P6 and to direct the respondents to issue

renewal of Building Permit based on Ext.P1.

2. The petitioners state that after obtaining a valid

Building Permit and paying the prescribed fee, the petitioners

started building construction and 90% of the construction is

completed. When the petitioners applied for renewal of Building

Permit as per Ext.P2, the 1st respondent directed the petitioners

to pay a renewal fee of `24,190/-. The petitioners paid the said

amount. Subsequently, the petitioners were issued with Ext.P3

letter dated 24.06.2019 demanding `45,17,935/-. The

respondents thereafter issued Ext.P4 notice dated 27.05.2022, WP(C) NO.22405 OF 2022

reducing the amount demanded to `27,37,880/-.

3. The petitioners submit that the petitioners have

obtained Building Permit, after paying the prescribed fee, which

was calculated as per the Kerala Municipality Building Rules.

The petitioners cannot be mulcted with further liability.

4. The petitioners submit that the petitioners are

disputing the amount claimed by the respondents. Pending the

dispute, if the Building Permit is not renewed, the petitioners,

who have invested huge amount of money in the project, would

be put to irreparable loss and injury.

5. Standing Counsel entered appearance and resisted

the writ petition. The Standing Counsel submitted that the initial

Building Permit was issued without properly ascertaining the

Floor Area Ratio. When the application for renewal of Building

Permit was resumed, it was noted that the petitioners, taking

into consideration Floor Area Ratio, have to pay `27,37,880/-.

Without the petitioners paying the said amount, if Building

Permit is renewed, there is a likelihood that the petitioners will WP(C) NO.22405 OF 2022

try to escape from payment of the said money. The proposed

construction involves residential flats also. In the circumstances,

the petitioners are not entitled to any relief, asserted the

Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned Standing Counsel representing the

respondents.

7. From the pleadings and arguments, it is evident that

the petitioners have started the construction of a multi-storied

building, after obtaining a valid Building Permit. The petitioners

had paid the licence fee of `46,070/- while applying for the

Building Permit.

8. The petitioners applied for renewal of Building

Permit. In the meanwhile, the petitioners were issued with

Ext.P3 notice demanding an amount of `45,17,935/-. The

petitioners submitted objection to the said demand. Thereafter,

Ext.P4 was issued to the petitioners revising the demand to

`27,37,880/-.

WP(C) NO.22405 OF 2022

9. The petitioners have made objection to the amount

so calculated by the respondents. This Court is of the view that

taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the

respondents shall consider the objection raised by the

petitioners. Pending consideration of the objections of the

respondents, if the Building project of the petitioners is stalled

due to non renewal of Building Permit, the petitioners would be

prejudiced.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of

directing the petitioners to deposit with the respondents an

amount of `12 lakhs within a period of one month. The

petitioners shall submit their objection to Exts.P4 to P6 in

writing to the Secretary to the Corporation. The respondents

shall consider the objections and take a final decision on the

demand, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioners. Depending upon the order to be passed by the

respondents, the petitioners will be liable to pay the balance WP(C) NO.22405 OF 2022

amount, if any, found due. The petitioners shall file their

objections within two weeks and the Secretary shall pass

orders thereon within a further period of 30 days. In the

meanwhile, if the petitioners deposit an amount of `12 lakhs

as directed above, the respondents shall pass orders on the

application for renewal of the building, within a period of two

weeks. The said amount of Rs.12 lakhs would be

adjusted/refunded (as the case may be) depending on the

decision to be taken by the respondents on the objections to

be filed by the petitioners.

sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh WP(C) NO.22405 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22405/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.E5/BA/046/14 DATED 24.01.2015 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28.07.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE RESPONDENTS Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. E5/89094/18 DATED 24.06.2009 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS Exhibit P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 04.07.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AGAINST EXHIBIT- P3 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE THE INTIMATION NO.

E10/E5/89094/18 DATED 27.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION NO. NO.

E10/E5/89094/18 DATED 26.06.2020 SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.

E10/E5/89094/18DATED 03.07.2022 SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT