High Court of KeralaWP(C)/12674/2015disposed of

Musthafa v. The State Of Kerala

2015-04-21Honourable Mr.Justice C.T.Ravikumar4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL 2015/1ST VAISAKHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 12674 of 2015 (H) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

----------------- MUSTHAFA, AGED 36 YEARS S/O.ALI, EDAVAZHIKAL HOUSE, VARANGODE DOWN HILL PO, MALAPURAM.

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.

LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

2. THE MALAPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O. MALAPURAM MALAPURAM DISTRICT-673 001.

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.R.RAJESH R2 BY SRI.ESM.KABEER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 12674 of 2015 (H) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------- EXT P1 ; A TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT GRANTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 30-6-2014.

EXT P2 : A TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERITIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 4-10-2014.

EXT P3 : A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SERVED ON THE PETITIONER DATED 233-2015. EXT P4 : A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 23-3-2015.

EXT P5 : A TRUE COPY OF THE OBECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 1-4-2015 TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE.

dlk

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 12674 of 2015 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of April, 2015

JUDGMENT

The captioned writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of Exts.P3 and P4. Earlier, the petitioner effected construction of a temporary structure. Evidently, the said temporary structure was numbered by the second respondent. Now, as per Ext.P3 stating that it is a mistake and it was sought to be cancelled. Ext.P4 is the another intimation given to the petitioner. In Ext.P4 it is stated that the said temporary structure was numbered without actually conducting a survey. On receipt of Exts.P3 and P4 the petitioner submitted his objections as per Ext.P5. The contention of the petitioner is that without considering the objections raised in Ext.P5 the respondents are proceeding to demolish the building in question in pursuance of Exts.P3 and P4. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed. 2.

Having heard the learned counsel on both sides I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition as hereunder:- Taking into consideration the fact that pursuant to the receipt of Exts.P3 and P4 the petitioner has raised objections

W.P.(C) No. 12674 of 2015 through Ext.P5 and it is now, pending. The second respondent, before whom it is pending, is directed to consider Ext.P5 and pass appropriate orders finalising the proposal made as per Exts.P3 and P4. Needless to say that before taking a decision and communicating the same, after conducting a hearing based on Ext.P5, the construction in question shall not be demolished. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JUDGE.

dlk