GEORGE C KAPPAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is challenging Ext.P10 order in this Original Petition. The issue involved is regarding a building constructed by the petitioner. Admittedly, the construction was not in compliance with the building rules applicable. Originally, the petitioner obtained exemption from certain provision of the building rules as per Ext.P2 Government Order, subject to certain conditions. It appears that pursuant thereto, the petitioner did not submit a revised plan before the Municipality, but constructed the building and completed the same in 1990. The Commissioner of the Municipality took objection to the said construction and directed the petitioner to demolish the building since it has been constructed in violation of the Building Rules. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Municipal Council, which took Ext.P5 decision thereon setting aside the order of the Commissioner and directing assessment of the building to property tax Ext.P5 states that two Members of the Council dissented and demanded that since the building was constructed after obtaining exemption from the Government, the matter should be referred to the Government and sanction obtained. It appears that one of the dissenting members filed a petition before the Government in which the Government passed Ext.P10 order pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in O.P.9959/1993. By the said order, the Government directed the petitioner to rectify the four defects mentioned therein. The order further stated that if the petitioner does not comply with the said directions, the construction shall be treated as unauthorised and the building shall be demolished as per rules by the Municipality soon after the time given to the party expires. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P10 order in this Original Petition.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) Before I can go into the merits of the case, I am called upon to dispose of a contention raised by the petitioner to the effect that the Government did not have jurisdiction to pass Ext.P10 order. The contention is raised in ground B of the Original Petition, which reads thus: