Dr. S. Vidya Prakash vs Kozhikode Corporation
2022 Latest Caselaw 8453 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
     WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
                        WP(C) NO. 19188 OF 2014
PETITIONER:

          DR. S. VIDYA PRAKASH, AGED 54 YEARS,
          S/O.K.S.PRAKASAM, AKKARAKKATTIL HOUSE,
          CIVIL STATION P.O., KOZHIKODE-20.
          BY ADVS.
          SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA
          SRI.P.T.ABHILASH


RESPONDENTS:

    1     KOZHIKODE CORPORATION
          BEECH ROAD, KOZHIZKODE-673 020,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
    2     SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
          KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, BEECH ROAD, KOZHIZKODE-673 020.
    3     TOWN PLANNING INSPECTOR
          KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, BEECH ROAD, KOZHIZKODE-673 020.
          BY ADV SRI.K.D.BABU,SC, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION



     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 19188 OF 2014
                                        2


               P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
              ------------------------------
             W.P.(C).No. 19188 of 2014
      ----------------------------------------------
        Dated this the 06th day of July, 2022


                           JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following

prayers:

"(i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the operation of Exts.P8 and P12 orders of the respondents;

(ii) issue any appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the respondents have issued Exts.P3, P8 and P12 orders, without any application of mind and arbitrarily;

(iii) issue such other writ, order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."[SIC]

2. It is the case of the petitioner that,

when Ext.P3 notice was issued, the petitioner submitted

Ext.P4 and when Ext.P6 was issued, the petitioner

submitted Ext.P7. Thereafter, when the petitioner

received Ext.P8, the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 WP(C) NO. 19188 OF 2014

explanation. Without considering the explanations

submitted by the petitioner, Ext.P12 order is passed.

This is the sum and substance of the argument of the

petitioner.

3. Heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and

the learned Standing counsel appearing for the 1 st

respondent.

4. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated his

contentions in the writ petition. The Standing counsel

appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that, several

opportunities were given to the petitioner. The premises

of the petitioner was inspected by the officers of the 1 st

respondent. Thereafter it was convinced that there is

violation and hence Ext.P12 order is passed. The

Standing counsel submitted that there is nothing to

interfere with Ext.P12 order.

5. This Court considered the contentions of the

petitioner and the respondents. This Court also perused

Ext.P12 order. From a perusal of Ext.P12 order, it is WP(C) NO. 19188 OF 2014

clear that the contentions raised by the petitioner in

Ext.P9 is not at all considered. The petitioner has got a

grievance that the inspection of the premises is

conducted without giving notice to the petitioner. If that

is the case, there can be a direction to the Corporation

authorities to inspect the property once again and

thereafter give an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner and can decide the matter afresh. To facilitate

the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders, Ext.P12 can be

set aside.

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the

following manner:

        i.      Ext.P12 is set aside.

        ii.     The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider

the matter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to

the petitioner.

iii. Before taking a final decision, the 1 st

respondent will inspect the property with notice to

the petitioner.

WP(C) NO. 19188 OF 2014

iv. The above exercise should be completed by

the 1st respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at

any rate, within a period of four months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

v. Till final orders are passed, the status quo

as on today will continue.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN DM JUDGE WP(C) NO. 19188 OF 2014

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19188/2014

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXT.P1.TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 18/5/2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P2.TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIFICATION AND REPORT OF THE PROPOSED SHEET ROOR FOR LEAK PROOFING CERTIED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT INCORPORATED ALONG WITH EXT.P1.

EXT.P3.TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3/12/2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESSPNDENT EXT.P5.TRUE COPY OF EXPLANATION DTED 10/12/2012 OFFERED BY THE PETITITONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO EXT.P3.

EXT.P5.TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.0113639 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P6.TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED NIL ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P7.TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 26/6/2013 SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P8.TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER DATED 31/10/2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P8(A).TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 31/10/2013 INCORPORATED ALONG WITH EXT.P8.

EXT.P9.TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION WP(C) NO. 19188 OF 2014

DATED 15/11/2013 OFFERED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P9(A).TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.0167375 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P10.TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED NIL ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P11.TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 16/1/2014 SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P12.TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/6/2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE