PUSHPALATHA Vs. DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions is the same they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the reference to the facts and the exhibits is from W.P.(C).No.37379 of 2017.

(2.) The petitioners in the said writ petition are stated to be in ownership and possession of 6.50 Ares of property in Re-Sy.No.35/5 of Attipra Village. They had put up a two storied building in the said property in the year 2012 after obtaining the necessary permits from the respondent Corporation. Thereafter, the petitioners applied before the Corporation for permit for construction of one additional floor above the existing construction. Since the application was not acted upon within the time specified in the Municipalities Act, the petitioners proceeded on the assumption that they had obtained a deemed permit and completed the construction of the additional floor as well. It is stated that, as part of the additional construction, the petitioners had also constructed certain sewage tanks, the location of which was objected to by a neighbour, who is the petitioner in W.P. (C).No.10380 of 2017. The said neighbour had approached this Court through the aforesaid writ petition seeking a direction to the Corporation to demolish the sewage tanks that were put up by the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.37379 of 2017. In the said writ petition, an interim order was also passed by this Court directing the respondent Corporation to close down the lodge belonging to the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.37379 of 2017 finding that there had been unauthorised constructions that had been put up by them.

(3.) During the pendency of the writ petition, and in compliance with the directions in the interim order passed by this Court, the lodge of the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.37379 of 2017 was closed and the offending structures demolished. The petitioners in the said writ petition, however, have preferred Ext.P5 application for regularisation of the construction of the additional floor. They have also preferred an application for renewal of the D & O license, which application pertains to the year 2017-2018. It is the case of the counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.37379 of 2017 that the Pollution Control Board has since issued a consent to operate the new sewage tanks that were installed by them, as evidenced by Ext.P9 produced along with I.A.No.6669 of 2018. It is also their case that the respondent Corporation had also permitted the construction of the sewage tank at the new location as evidenced by Ext.P10 communication produced along with the same I.A. The limited prayer of the petitioners at this stage is for a direction to the respondent Corporation to consider Ext.P5 application for regularisation of construction, and thereafter, consider the fresh application that they proposes to file seeking the issuance of a D & O license for carrying on the lodge in their premises.