VIJAYAN Vs. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, THRISSUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ISSUE involved is regarding alleged unauthorised construction effected by the petitioner, with respect to a workshop building. Proceedings under Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act was initiated against the petitioner by the 3rd respondent. A final order confirming the provisional order was issued, which was subjected to challenge before this court in WP(C) No. 18560/2007. In Exhibit P14 judgment this court observed that, case of the petitioner is that he only constructed the building in accordance with the directions issued by this court in R.F.A. No.30/2007, arose from a partition suit. Contention of the petitioner was that the construction was necessitated because he had to shift the workshop to another plot which was allotted to his share in the partition, in view of the time limit for completing such construction stipulated by the Sub Court in the partition suit. In WP(C) No.18560/2007 petitioner took a contention that he had submitted a reply to the Municipality seeking regularisation of the construction, under Rule 143 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. This court disposed of the writ petition observing that, if the petitioner prefers an application under Rule 143 seeking regularisation of the construction within one week, the same shall be considered by the respondent Corporation and a decision shall be taken within two months. In compliance with the directions contained in Exhibit P14 judgment, an application for regularisation was submitted. Through Exhibit P1 the 1st respondent had intimated the petitioner that, the application stands rejected for the reason that regularisation cannot be permitted because there is violation of the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. It is aggrieved by Exhibit P1 and by the consequential steps initiated for demolition of the building, the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent it is mentioned that the unauthorised construction is made violating provisions in the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, to the extent of not providing required set backs from the side of the Road and from the boundaries of the plot on the back and sides. It is stated that rejection of the application was intimated to the petitioner, but he had failed to demolish the building.

(3.) FROM the averments in the counter affidavit it is not discernible as to whether the 3rd respondent had issued any detailed proceedings rejecting the regularisation application. It is also not discernible as to whether the 1st respondent himself had taken such a decision in exercise of any delegated power. However, I am of the view that since a statutory remedy has been provided against rejection of any application filed under Rule 143, the petitioner can be relegated to seek such remedy.