Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
User Queries
View the actual judgment from court
Kerala High Court
V.Shahul Hameed,S/O. Vella ... vs The Director Of Municipalities on 5 September, 2100

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 26465 of 2007(A)

1. V.SHAHUL HAMEED,S/O. VELLA MEERAN, ... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPALITIES, ... Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY,

3. THE TALUK SURVEYOR

4. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNING OFFICER,

5. V. MOHAMMED ABDUL KHADER,

For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE Dated :05/09/2100

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 26465 OF 2007

----------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of September, 2007 JUDGMENT

Having considered the averments in the Writ Petition, the various documents placed along with the same and the submissions addressed by Sri.K.Raveendran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.V.K.Sunil, Standing Counsel for the Pathanamthitta Municipality, I am of the view that it is not necessary that this Court decides the issue on merits.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the building permit which is issued by the Municipality to the 5th respondent is liable to be cancelled invoking Rule 16 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. It is seen that the petitioner has already approached the Director of Municipalities, Kerala by filing Ext.P3. But, as rightly submitted by the learned Government Pleader, Mr.Anzar, the power under the Rules is with the Secretary of the Municipality himself. Accordingly, I dispose of the Writ Petition issuing the following directions: The petitioner is permitted to file a complaint in the lines of Ext.P3 before the Secretary of the 2nd respondent Municipality. If the 2nd respondent receives any such complaint within two weeks from today, he will entertain that complaint, issue notice to the 5th respondent, hear WPC : 26465 of 2007

2

the petitioner and the 5th respondent and dispose of the same in accordance with law. This will be done by him at the earliest and at any rate within two months of receiving copy of this judgment. It is made clear that constructions put up, if any, by the 5th respondent will be at his risk and subject to the result of the petition to be filed by the petitioner in response to Ext.P3.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

btt

WPC : 26465 of 2007

3