SEBASTIAN JOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners claim to have commenced construction of a multi-storied building on the strength of an approved plan, issued by the competent Local Self Government Authority, viz; the first respondent herein. A true copy of the said building permit has been appended to this writ petition as Ext.P1. The petitioners' grievance is that even though they have substantially completed the construction, they could not complete it within the time granted by Ext.P1 and therefore, that they were forced to apply for its extension, when the second respondent Authority rejected such request by issuing Ext.P4. The petitioners say that Ext.P4 is illegal and they have filed this writ petition impugning its on several grounds.

(2.) I heard Sri.P.B. Sahasranaman, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.P.K.Soyuz, the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent, Sri.M.P.Prakash, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the third respondent, Sri.V.Krishna Menon, the learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent.

(3.) The order impugned in this writ petition is Ext.P4 as already indicated above. As per this order, the Secretary of the Corporation of Cochin, the second respondent herein, has rejected the petitioners' application for extension of the building permit on three grounds, namely that the petitioners have constructed the building with an excess height of 16 metres than what was permitted in Ext.P1 permit; that they had made constructions without the permission of the Corporation and that they have not obtained the Coastal Regulation Zone (hereinafter referred to as "CRZ" for short) Clearance Certificate from the competent Authority. The Corporation, therefore, alleges in Ext.P4 that the construction made by the petitioners is in violation of Rule 18 (b) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999.