Building permits must comply with statutory provisions, and challenges to such permits must be timely; delay may waive the right to contest approvals.

JUDGMENT :

Amit Rawal, J.

1. This order shall dispose of six(6) writ appeals arising out of the common judgment dated 11.04.2024 in W.P.(C)No.5712 of 2023 (first writ petition) and W.P. (C)No.23754 of 2023 (second writ petition). W.A.No.780 of 2024 and W.A.No.684 of 2024 arise out of the decision in W.P.(C)No.23754 of 2023; and W.A.No.683 of 2024 and W.A.No.812 of 2024 arise out of W.P.(C)No.5712 of 2023 whereas W.A.Nos.1072 of 2024 and 1679 of 2024 have been filed by the third parties seeking leave of this Court to challenge the aforesaid judgment, claiming to be the other co-owners who are supporting the respondents, in the original writ petitions/appellants in the other intra court appeals.

2. Facts leading to the filing of the two writ petitions are enumerated hereinbelow:

First writ petition was filed by nine(9) petitioners i.e., V.M.Abdul Shukoor and Others against Corporation of Cochin, its Secretary and Assistant Executive Engineer as respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Reethamma, Ealikutty, Joseph Koluthara, Antony Koluthara and George Koluthara as respondent Nos.4 to 8. The reliefs claimed in the aforementioned writ petition were as under:

“i) Call for the records leading to Exhibits P12 and P14;

ii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibits P12 and P14

iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents 1 to 3 immediately cancel Exhibits P12 & P14;

iv) grant such other reliefs, as this Hon’ble Court shall deem just

v) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents.”

From perusal of the aforesaid reliefs, two permits have been challenged i.e., Exts.P12 dated 25.05.2022 and P14 building permit dated 26.07.2024.

3. In the second writ petition out of which W.A.No.780 of 2024 and W.A.No.684 of 2024 have arisen, petitioners were same as in the other writ petition whereas respondent No.1 to 8 were the official respondents and Nos.9 to 15 were the same persons except one Sebastian Koluthara who was not arrayed as respondent in the other writ petition and the following reliefs were claimed:

I) Call for the records leading to Exhibits P11, P14 and P15;

ii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibits P11, P14 and P15;

iii) grant such other reliefs, as this Hon’ble Court shall deem just and

iv) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents.”

Essentially three orders Ext.P11, P14 and P15 have been challenged; Ext.P11 is the order of the Government dated 17.12.2002 passed before issuance of order dated 26.07.2004 which is Ext.P14 in the first writ petition; i.e. the minutes of the meeting of the committee of the Municipal Corporation dated 12.04.2018 which is Ext.R9(e) in the first writ petition; and Ext.P15 permit dated 25.05.2022 which is Ext.P12 in the first writ petition.

4. The writ petitioners claim to be the owners of different shop rooms in a building called Koluthara Broadway Bazar alleged to have been constructed on fifty(50) cents of plot in Broadway at Ernakulam. The aforementioned property was originally purchased by one K.P.Varghese of Koluthara family in the name of his two children. A partition deed Ext.P13, in the first