SAFE HOMES DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. KANNUR MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These captioned writ petitions are materially connected in respect of the notice issued by the Municipality to the petitioner informing that NOC was cancelled by respondents 2 and 3 granted in terms of Rule 5 (5) of the Kerala Municipality Bulding Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 1999' for short) and also a writ petition filed by a third person complaining that the construction undertaken by the petitioners in other writ petitions are in violation of the Coastal Regulation Zone notifications 2009 and 2011 (CRZ). Therefore, I heard them together and propose to pass a common judgment. The facts and documents available from W.P.(C)No1006/2013 are relied upon for disposal of the writ petitions and wherever separate facts are required, they will be supplied. The material facts are as follows:

(2.) Thereupon, petitioners challenged the orders issued by the Municipality by filing W.P.(C)No.25571/2012, and the said writ petition was admitted and an interim order of stay was granted. Thereafter, another order was issued by the Municipality based on a Government Order. Therefore, the said writ petition was amended and those orders were also challenged. Meanwhile, the Thilleri residents Association, filed W.P.(C) No.22194/2011 against the construction activities carried on by the petitioners. Petitioners themselves got impleaded as respondents 8 and 9 in the said writ petition. According to the petitioners, the building is constructed within the cantonment area, after securing No Objection Certificate from the cantonment board by the owners of property, evident from Ext.P8. Petitioners have also obtained consent certificates from the fire and rescue services and also from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. While so, the 2nd respondent herein issued a notice to the Municipality stating that the consent for construction of the building was given as per the then existing guidelines. However, according to them, the guidelines since being amended, cancellation of permit was sought, evident from Ext.P9 dated 3.4.2012. The Municipality on receipt of the notice issued a communication to the 2nd respondent requesting for cancellation of the notice, evident from Ext.P10 dated 8.3.2013. In the said reply, Municipality has clearly stated that the permit was granted strictly in accordance with the provisions of Act and Rules. Petitioner also gave Ext.P11 reply to the Municipality stating that NOC was granted by the cantonment as per the existing laws and therefore, assuming that there is a change in the guidelines, that cannot be taken as a ground to revoke the permit, already granted on the basis of existing guidelines. That apart, it is submitted that construction of the building started after the permit was given and after obtaining permissions from all the statutory authorities and therefore, there is no violation of any statutory rules in the construction of the building. Aforesaid writ petitions were heard together and in W.P. (C)No.22194/2011, 2nd respondent and the defence secretary were parties. The main contention taken was that as the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P9 dated 3.4.2012, the permit has to be revoked. This contention was taken into account by this Court, and after considering all other contentions, the orders directing to stop the construction was quashed reserving the right of the Municipality to take proper action, if any, after issuing notice to the petitioners, evident from Ext.P12 judgment dated 3.4.2012. In Ext.P12 judgment, it was found by this Court that the order of the 2 nd respondent, namely Ext.P9 cannot stand.

(3.) However, in the light of Ext.P12 judgment, W.P. (C)No.22194/2011 challenging the construction activities of the petitioners, was withdrawn submitting that the subject matter of the case has become infructuous and accordingly, Ext.P13 judgment is passed dismissing the writ petition as infructuous. However, after receipt of the copy of the judgment, without any further notice and in total disregard to the judgment of this Court, No Objection Certificate, namely Ext.P8 dated 2.8.2008, has been revoked as per Ext.P14 order. According to the petitioners, Ext.P14 is issued over looking the judgment of this Court and in total disregard of the same. Thereupon, as a consequential action Ext.P15 notice is issued by the Municipality asking the petitioner to show cause why the permit granted to the petitioners shall not be cancelled. It is thus challenging Exts.P14 and P15, the said writ petition is filed.