HIGH COURT OF KERALA
THOMAS PAUL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has carried out the construction of a building on the basis of Exts.P1 and P2 issued by the 2nd respondent. Partial occupancy certificate has been issued by Exts.P3 and P4. The 2nd respondent has issued Ext.P5 notice to the petitioner to comply certain conditions. It can be seen that the compliance is required as per Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 as well as under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P6 reply stating that the 1999 Rules were applicable at the time when the building permit was granted and the construction was being proceeded with and insistence on compliance with requirements of the 2019 Rules is not be permissible. The petitioner, has produced Ext.P8 judgment of this Court, in which, this Court has held that the law should be the one applicable as on the date of grant of building permit pursuant to which the construction was made. As similar view has been expressed in Ext.P9 judgment also, I do not find any reason to take a different view.
2. In the above circumstances, the counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the petitioner may submit a request for regularization in the proper forma
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.