SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 37465

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N. NAGARESH, J
M S SOBHA KUMARI, – Appellant
Versus
PUTHUNAGARAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH – Respondent
WP(C)/23198/2022



Advocates:
V.N.HARIDAS, SAIFUDEEN T.S, ANJANA CHANDRAN

Authorities must adhere to legal obligations by considering statutory appeals and providing timely resolutions in administrative matters.

Headnote:

Occupancy - Building Permit - Kerala Panchayat Raj Act - Section 276 - The court emphasized the need for timely consideration of statutory appeals regarding occupancy certificates, reaffirming the obligation of authorities to provide a fair hearing and pass orders expediently.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner applied for an Occupancy Certificate after constructing a homeopathic clinic as per the Building Permit. The application was rejected, prompting the petitioner to file a statutory appeal under Section 276 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, which remained unaddressed by the authorities.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed the respondent to consider the statutory appeal, highlighting the importance of adhering to the law and providing a timely resolution.

Issues: Whether the 4th respondent is obliged to consider and decide on the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner under the relevant section of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the non-consideration of the statutory appeal violates the procedural safeguards mandated by law, emphasizing timely and fair administrative decision-making.

Final Decision: The court directed the 4th respondent to expeditiously consider and decide the statutory appeal within two months.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 21st day of July, 2022 The petitioner, who is running a Homeo Clinic in her residential building, applied for a Building Permit and completed the construction as per the Building Permit. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application for issuance of Occupancy Certificate. The grievance of the petitioner is that the application for Occupancy Certificate was rejected by the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P9. Against Ext.P9, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P13 Statutory Appeal invoking Section 276 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994 as early on 25.11.2021. The 4th respondent is not considering and passing orders on Ext.P13 Statutory Appeal preferred by the petitioner.

2. Standing Counsel, Sri.K.Mohanakannan, entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel denied all the material allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. The Standing Counsel, however, submitted that Ext.P13 being a Statutory Appeal, it can be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law.

In view of the facts as stated above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P13 Statutory Appeal preferred by the petitioner invoking Section 276 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994 and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period two months, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE

hmh

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23198/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 21.05.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED

06.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FROM THE LSGD ASST. ENGINEER.

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED

12.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, INTIMATING THE PETITIONER THAT THE 2ND RESPONDENT IS AWAITING A REPORT FROM THE LSGD ENGINEER.

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF DISTRICT LEVEL ADALAT DATED FROM

25.07.2019 TO 29.07.2019.

Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE

2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.07.2019 INTIMATING THE PETITIONER TO SUBMIT FRESH APPLICATION FOR REGULARISATION.

Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED

13.03.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT STATING ALL THE FACTS.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE REPRESENTATION, DATED

14.04.2020.

Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP (C)

11213 OF 2020 DATED 07.04.2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND TAKE A DECISION WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME.

Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE

2ND RESPONDENT SUBSEQUENT TO EXT.P9 DATED 30.07.2021.

Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED REPLY DATED

21.10.2021 TO ALL THE DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FROM THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED

02.04.2019 Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED

19.11.2021 IN THE WP(C) NO.24443 OF

2021.

Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY APPEAL FILED UNDER S.276 OF THE KERALA PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT, 1994 DATED

25.11.2021.

Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DATED 03.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT.

Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED

22.03.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top