Abraham Issac vs N.S.Naisam
2022 Latest Caselaw 8354 Ker

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
            Friday, the 1st day of July 2022 / 10th Ashadha, 1944
          CONTEMPT CASE(C) NO. 1494 OF 2021(S) IN WP(C) 17147/2020
   PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN THE WPC:

     ABRAHAM ISSAC, AGED 41 YEARS,   S/O ISAAC ABRAHAM,

     IDASSERIL HOUSE, LINK PARK ROAD, POTTAKUZHI ROAD,

     PACHALAM, COCHIN-682 012.



   BY ADVOCATES M/S. MANU GOVIND, MEGHA MUKUNDASWAR.

   RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.2 IN THE WPC:


     SHRI.N.S. NAISAM,

     SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF KOCHI,

     PARK AVENUE ROAD, PB NO.1016, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 011.



     BY SRI.K. JANARDHANA SHENOY, STANDING COUNSEL

     This Contempt of court case (civil) having come up for orders on
01.07.2022, the court on the same day passed the following:


                                                       P.T.O.
                      ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
          ---------------------------------------------------------------
            Contempt of Court Case (Civil) No.1494 of 2021
          [arising out of judgment dated 26.08.2020 in W.P.(C) No.17147/2020]
          ----------------------------------------------------------------
                      Dated this the 01st day of July, 2022

                                    ORDER

Sri.K.Janardhana Shenoy, learned Standing counsel for the Kochi

Municipal Corporation, appearing for the respondent Municipal

Corporation Secretary, would submit that the application of the petitioner

for demolition of the subject construction has been kept pending since

application for regularisation, made by the building owner, was pending

before the Senior Town Planner. The building owner was granted

permission only to construct a dormitory and he altered it to use as a

godown and application for regularisation was rejected by the Senior Town

Planner, which was challenged by the builder in a writ proceedings, in

which the rejection of the plea of regularisation was remitted and the

matter is now pending consideration before the Town Planner, for passing

orders, consequent to the remit. That, after passing orders on the remit,

necessary orders will be passed on the application of the petitioner, as

mentioned above.

2. Sri.Manu Govind, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that, even now, neither the building owner nor the respondent

Municipal Corporation have a case that the building owner has any valid

and lawful licence to use the building as a godown and that, under the

guise of the remit, the respondent Municipal Corporation is, even now,

permitting the building owner to illegally use the altered building as a

godown, etc.

3. The respondent Municipal Corporation Secretary will

immediately explain this Court as to whether the building owner has been

given any licence or permission to use the altered structure as a godown

and, if not, as to under what circumstances the Municipal Corporation is

permitting the building owner to use the building as a godown.

4. So long as the building owner does not have any valid and

lawful permission to use the building as a godown, it may not be legal for

the respondent Municipal Corporation to permit the use of the building

as a godown merely citing the pendency of the application for

regularisation, submitted by the building owner, pending before the

Town Planner.

5. The Registry will show the name of Sri.Manu Govind, learned Advocate for the petitioner, in the cause list.

List on 13.07.2022.

Hand Over a copy of this order to both sides.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE Skk//01072021

01-07-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar