GEORGE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners own three shop rooms bearing door Nos.VIII/178/38, VIII/178/35 and VIII/178/98 in the 'Vyapara Bhavan' constructed by the 7th respondent Paravur Town Merchants Association and the 8 th respondent Paravur Taluk Merchants Welfare Society, in 1.22850 acres of land in Survey Nos.286/17 and 286/18 of Paravur Village, on the strength of Ext.P1 building permit. As evident from Exts.P2 and P3 sale deeds dated 06.02.2004 and 10.02.2005 petitioners 1 and 2 have purchased shop rooms bearing door Nos.VIII/178/38 and VIII/178/35 with proportionate undivided share in the land. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the 3 rd petitioner purchased shop room bearing door No.VIII/178/98 with proportionate undivided share in the land, vide sale deed No.2063/2005 of the Sub Registrar Office, North Paravur dated 21.03.2015. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P9 communication dated 02.12.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent Senior Town Planner to the 5 th respondent Secretary of the 4 th respondent Paravur Municipality and also Ext.P10 minutes of the personal hearing conducted by the 3rd respondent on 20.11.2019. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 5 to hear them and consider and decide their objections against regularisation of the illegal construction made by respondents 7 and 8, including the objections raised in Exts.P6 and P12 representations, before taking a final decision on the application for regularisation.

(2.) On 27.12.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 3. The learned Standing Counsel for Paravur Municipality took notice for respondents 4 to 6. The 7 th respondent Paravur Town Merchants Association entered appearance through counsel and urgent notice by speed post was ordered to the 8th respondent Paravur Taluk Merchants Welfare Society. This Court granted an interim order to keep in abeyance the proceedings pursuant to Exts.P9 and P10 for a period of three weeks. The said interim order, which was extended from time to time, is still in force.

(3.) The 3rd respondent Senior Town Planner has filed a statement opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. Respondents 7 and 8 have also filed counter affidavit opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, along with I.A.No.2 of 2020 seeking an order to vacate the interim order granted in this writ petition. They have also filed I.A.No.3 of 2020 seeking an order to accept Ext.R7(y) as additional document. Respondents 4 and 5 have filed counter affidavit, through the learned Standing Counsel for Paravur Municipality, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit.