High Court of KeralaWP(C)/9538/2015disposed of

K.K.Lazar v. Thrissur Municipal Corporation

2015-04-07Honourable Mr. Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2015/17TH CHAITHRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 9538 of 2015 (N) --------------------------- PETITIONER:

--------------- K.K.LAZAR, AGED 76 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.P.KUNJUVAREED, DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (RTD.), KWA, CHEMBAKASSERY KOONAMMAVE HOUSE, TMC 3/132(T.C.20/18) NEAR KIZHAKKUMPATTUKARA BUS STOP, PALAKKAD ROAD, THRISSUR-680 005.

BY ADVS.SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN SMT.MINI.V.A.

RESPONDENTS:

------------------

1. THRISSUR CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY OFFICE OF THE THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR-680 001.

2. THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION OFFICE OF THE THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR-680 001. R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.V.N.HARIDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 9538 of 2015 (N) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

---------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 25/3/1996 ISSUED BY THE THEN TRICHUR MUNICIPALITY.

EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 5/2/1996 ISSUED BY THE THRISSUR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.

EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4/1/2013 IN WP(C)29306/2012 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 19/1/2013 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.BA/156/79-80 DATED 3/7/1979 ISSUED BY THE THEN TRICHUR MUNICIPALITY.

EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 15.6.1996 ISSUED BY THE THEN TRICHUR MUNICIPALITY.

EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 12.4.1996 ISSUED BY THE THRISSUR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.

EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATES ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ISSUED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPTS. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28/2/2015 OF THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT DATED 3/3/2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS.

EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD DATED 4/3/2015 OF THE RESPONDENTS.

EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPTS UPTO 2013-14 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ------------------------------- /True Copy/ P.A to Judge.

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

---------------------------------- W.P. (C) No. 9538 of 2015 (N) ---------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2015.

JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner claims to have two buildings with three door numbers. According to him, the building numbers have been changed from time to time on account of revision/de-limitation of the division of the respondent Corporation, the latest division number being 22.

3. The respondent Corporation is said to have been collecting taxes reflecting only the old building numbers. The singular grievance of the petitioner is that the Corporation has persistently refused to assign new building numbers and affix the same on the outer doors of the buildings, though it has

W.P.(C.) No. 9538/2015 -2done it in the case of neighbours, who are similarly situated. Among other things, seeking allocation of new building numbers, the petitioner is said to have submitted Ext.P10 representation to the respondent Corporation. Ventilating his grievance that the said representation has not been expeditiously considered by the respondent Corporation, the petitioner has approached this Court.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation has submitted that the petitioner submitted Ext.P10 application only on 28.02.2015, and that the respondent Corporation will take all steps to consider it in accordance with law at the earliest.

In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's Ext.P10

W.P.(C.) No. 9538/2015 -3representation in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.