P.Mujeeb Rahman vs The Ramanattukara Municipality
2023 Latest Caselaw 645 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
 THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 22ND POUSHA, 1944
                    WP(C) NO. 34612 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

         P.MUJEEB RAHMAN
         AGED 41 YEARS
         S/O. LATE AVARANKUTTY HAJI, ZAIBUNA MANZIL,
         RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
         PIN-673 633

         BY ADV R.RAMADAS


RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE RAMANATTUKARA MUNICIPALITY
         REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
         RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
         PIN-673 633
    2    THE SECRETARY,
         RAMANATTUKARA MUNICIPALITY,
         RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
         PIN-673 633

         BY ADV MOHAMMED SHAH


     THIS WRIT PETITION       (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP     FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.01.2023,      THE COURT ON THE SAME      DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.34612 of 2022

                                 2


                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12th day of January, 2023

The petitioner is absolute owner of 1.82 Ares of land in

Re-Survey No.298/11 of Ramanattukara Village, Kozhikode

Taluk in Kozhikode District. There are already five Shop

Rooms situated in the above property bearing Nos.5/352 to

5/356.

2. The petitioner has applied for permission to make

additional constructions to the existing building. The officials

of the Municipality inspected the site and after properly

considering the petitioner's application, granted Ext.P1

Building Permit to the petitioner for extension of the existing

building. The Municipality has approved the plan of the

proposed extension of the building. Ext.P1 Building Permit

was valid for 3 years. However, the petitioner could not

commence the construction because of the financial

difficulties.

WP(C) No.34612 of 2022

3. The petitioner submitted an application dated

18.01.2021 for renewal of the Building Permit before the

1st respondent-Municipality. However, the said renewal

application has been rejected by the 2nd respondent-Secretary

to the Municipality as per Ext.P2 order.

4. In Ext.P2 order, it is stated that a notice for

personal hearing dated 25.07.2022 was issued to the

petitioner and that the petitioner has not turned up for the

hearing and hence, the application for renewal of Building

Permit is rejected. The petitioner states that no such notice

was served on the petitioner. The petitioner was not informed

about the alleged hearing scheduled by the Municipality.

5. In Ext.P2, it is also stated that there is no stability

for the existing building for making the additional

constructions. In this connection, it may be noted that no

inspection was conducted by the officials of the Municipality

with notice to the petitioner. The 2 nd respondent has now

rejected the application for renewal of Building Permit without WP(C) No.34612 of 2022

conducting any proper inspection and without affording the

petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. The action of the

2nd respondent is illegal, highly arbitrary, unreasonable and in

violation of the principles of natural justice, contends the

petitioner.

6. Ext.P1 Building Permit was issued by the then

officials of the Municipality after conducting a proper

inspection and after satisfying the stability of the building for

making additional constructions. Now, the officials of the

Municipality have changed and the new officials including the

2nd respondent, without conducting any proper inspection of

the building with notice to the petitioner and without affording

the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing, have

rejected the application for renewal of Building Permit as per

Ext.P2 order. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that before

passing Ext.P2 order, the petitioner was not heard.

7. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of

the Municipality and submitted that a notice was issued to the WP(C) No.34612 of 2022

petitioner and the petitioner did not respond.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Standing Counsel representing the

respondents.

9. Serving of a notice prior to Ext.P2 is disputed by

the petitioner. Taking into consideration the civil

consequences of Ext.P2 order on the petitioner, I am of the

view that the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of

hearing.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of

directing the respondents to treat Ext.P2 itself as a show-

cause notice and pass appropriate orders afresh, after giving

an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Orders afresh shall

be passed within a period of six weeks.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk WP(C) No.34612 of 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34612/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 27.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P2        TRUE   COPY   OF    THE    ORDER  DATED
                  20.08.2022   ISSUED     BY    THE   2ND
                  RESPONDENT.


RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL