St. Francis Xavier Church vs Thripunithura Municipality
2022 Latest Caselaw 12403 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                         PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
 FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 2ND POUSHA, 1944
                 WP(C) NO. 42569 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:

    1    ST. FRANCIS XAVIER CHURCH
         PUTHIYAKAVU, THRIPUNITHURA.P.O.,
         PIN - 680 301
         REPRESENTED BY ITS VICAR,
         FR.GEORGE MOONJELY.
    2    MATHEW KURISINKAL,
         KAIKAR, AGED 67 YEARS,
         S/O.JOSEPH.K.M.,
         KURISINKAL HOUSE,
         KUREEKKAD VILLAGE,
         KADUNGAMANGALAM,
         THIRUVANKULAM.P.O.,
         ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
    3    JOLLY SIMON,
         KAIKAR, AGED 39 YEARS,
         S/O.SIMON, CHENBISSERIL HOUSE,
         PUTHIYAKAVU P.O., THRIPUNITHURA- 682 301.

         BY ADVS.
         SAJI VARGHESE KAKKATTUMATTATHIL
         AMALENDU A.


RESPONDENTS:

    1    THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY,
         THRIPUNITHURA, PIN - 682 301
         REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
    2    THE SECRETARY,
         THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY,
         THRIPUNITHURA, PIN - 682 301.
    3    PRINNI VARGHESE,
         S/O.VARGHESE,
         RESIDING AT KUTTIYEDATHU HOUSE,
         PADAMUGAL, KOCHI - 682 030.
 WP(C) No.42569 of 2022
                         :2 :


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.42569 of 2022
                                  :3 :




                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2022

The grievance raised by the petitioners, a Parish

Church of Arch Diocess of Ernakulam-Anagamaly of the Syro

Malabar Major Archie Episcopal Church and others, is

regarding an alleged unauthorised construction being carried

out by the 3rd respondent.

2. The petititoners state that the 3rd respondent is

carrying out a construction without leaving sufficient set back

as per the Kerala Municipal Building Rules. Construction of

foundation by the 3rd respondent is in close proximity of the

petitioners' building and it would not only offend Building Rules

but also would damage the petitioners' building. The

petitioners have therefore submitted Ext.P2 complaint before

the Secretary to the 1st respondent-Municipality. Unless

Ext.P2 is considered and immediate steps are taken to stop WP(C) No.42569 of 2022

the illegal construction, the petitioners will be put to untold

hardship and loss.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and

taking into consideration the averments made in the writ

petition, I am of the view that Ext.P2 complaint requires

immediate attention of the 2nd respondent.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing

the 2nd respondent-Secretary to consider Ext.P2 complaint,

make necessary enquiries and take such steps as is

appropriate under law. The 2 nd respondent-Secretary shall

ensure that no construction activity is carried on without

obtaining Building Permit or in violation of any of the Building

Rules.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE

sss WP(C) No.42569 of 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42569/2022

PETITIONERS EXHIBIT

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08/12/2022 ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 08/12/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING ACCEPTANCE OF THE SAID COMPLAINT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09/12/2022. EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING THE LIE AND NATURE OF THE CONSTRUCTION UNDERTAKEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN HIS PROPERTY.