BINDU PRAKASH Vs. RESTAURANT AND SERVICES PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W .A.No.2259 of 2012 is filed by the party respondents 5, 7, 8 and 9 before the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.26589 of 2012. W.A.No.2260 of 2012 is filed by Nikunjam Appartment Owners' Association represented by its President who is the 1st petitioner in W.P.(C) No.21723 of 2012 and W.A.No.2261 of 2012 is filed by Bindu Prakash and two others who are owners of residential apartments in question and respondents 4, 5 and 6 in W.P.(C) No.27119 of 2012. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the parties and exhibits in W.A.No.2259 of 2012.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the 5th respondent -builder constructed an apartment complex named as 'Nikunjam Harmony' at Vellayambalam, Trivandrum. The said complex came to be transferred to the members of the 4th appellant -Association.

(3.) SO far as the above appeals, they pertain to a common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20.12.2012 in W.P. (C) Nos.26589/2012, 27119/2012 and 21723/2012 arising out of an interim order of Ombudsman referred to as Ext.P9 before the learned Single Judge. It is not in dispute that the entire complex consists of 11 plus 1 floor with three apartments in each floor totally numbering 36 apartments in the entire complex. According to the appellants, all the 36 apartments have to be kept as residential apartments. But, according to the builder and owner of the land represented through Power of Attorney, two portions of the property could be converted as commercial space as per the amended Government Order, Ext.P8. Whether such conversion is permissible in that particular site is a matter which has to be decided by the Corporation of Trivandrum depending upon the Building Rules and also the latest Government Order issued, Ext.P8, as contended by the builder. The controversy with which we are forced is the order of Ombudsman at Ext.P9. Apart from approaching several authorities by the appellants, they approached Ombudsman for the first time on 18.11.2011 complaining against the inaction of the Corporation of Trivandrum based on the complaint dated 14.11.2011. They have lodged a complaint with the Corporation, but they have not taken any action. Nothing seems to have happened upto 24.1.2012 when other occupants of the apartments gave another complaint described as a detailed complaint, according to the appellants herein, before the Corporation. When nothing happened, according to them, they were compelled to approach Ombudsman on 9.4.2012 complaining inaction on the part of the Corporation of Trivandrum. On 6.7.2012, Ext.R7(k) initial order directing the landlord not to lease out commercial area as per Ext.R7(a) came to be passed. The said order came to be extended on 30.7.2012 by virtue of Ext.R7(l) which was followed by Ext.P9 on 29.10.2012 making the order dated 6.7.2012 at Ext.R7(k) as an absolute one.