FATHIMATHUL RASEENA Vs. KANNUR MUNICIPALITY, KANNUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the issue involved in both these cases is the same, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the reference to facts and exhibits is from W.P.(C) No.17438/2014.

(2.) The petitioner proposed to construct a building in land owned by him in Ward 3 of the 1st respondent Municipality [now 'Corporation']. The application for building permit was processed by the respondent Corporation, and Ext.P1 building permit was issued to the petitioner. It is stated that, pursuant to the building permit obtained by him, he proceeded to construct the building, and while the major portion of the construction was completed, he was issued a communication by the 2nd respondent that the building that was constructed by him was situated at a distance of 100 metres from the property maintained by a Defence Establishment, and since the necessary No Objection Certificate [NOC] had not been obtained by the petitioner at the time of obtaining the building permit, the construction of the building will be stopped forthwith. It is stated that since the petitioner had already completed major part of the construction by that date, he had applied to the respondent Corporation for an occupancy certificate in respect of the building. The petitioner was then served with a show cause notice stating that since no NOC had been obtained from the Defence Establishment, the occupancy certificate could not be granted to him. The petitioner impugns the said notice issued to him by the respondent Corporation, inter alia, on the ground that it was not the fault of the petitioner that an NOC had not been insisted by the respondent Corporation at the time of granting the building permit, and a subsequent insistence of an NOC could not be made by the respondent Corporation, since the building permit had already been granted to him and substantial construction has already been effected by the petitioner.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation would submit that, although show cause notices were issued to the petitioner citing the non-availability of an NOC, as a ground for directing the stoppage of construction, the Defence Establishment has since clarified that, based on a subsequent assessment of the security requirements by the Defence establishment, the construction activities of the petitioner cannot be said to be objectionable from the Defence Establishment's point of view. Taking note of the said stand of the Defence Establishment, I am of the view that the construction put up by the petitioner cannot be seen as objectionable solely for the want of an NOC from the Defence Establishment.