JUDGMENT

Dated this the 4 th day of March, 2022 This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-

“i) Issue a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue occupancy certificate to the petitioner based on the completion certificate submitted by the petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P7 forthwith.

ii) Issue a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue the occupancy certificate, without taking into account minor variation in the completion plan, if the variations do not conflict with the Kerala Municipality Building Rules as stated in Proviso to Rule 17(1) of the Rules.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been issued with Ext.P5 building permit on 26.3.2014 for the construction of a two storied building in his property. It is submitted that though the construction of the building is completed in the year 2016, the building permit had been cancelled alleging minor variations in the construction carried out. It is submitted that thereafter, the petitioner had submitted application for regularisation and had also pointed out that the minor variations sought for do not require any further permissions in accordance with the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. It is stated that the application submitted by the petitioner for regularisation was also rejected. However, while matters stood so, the respondents had convened an Adalath to consider applications for occupancy certificate and by Ext.P9 had decided to set aside the decision for cancellation of the permit. It is submitted that in the above situation, there is no impediment to grant occupancy certificate to the petitioner. However, long after Ext.P9, even though requests had been made repeatedly by the petitioner, no steps are taken to issue the occupancy certificate. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was only on account of a road widening as proposed in a DTP Scheme that the request for occupancy certificate has not been considered by the Municipality. It is submitted that the said proposal for further road widening had evidently been given up by the Municipality itself as is evident from Exts.P2 and P4. It is submitted that the application of the petitioner for occupancy certificate is liable to be considered without reference to the objection with regard to the further road widening in the DTP Scheme.

4. A statement has been placed on record by respondents 1 and 2. It is submitted that the petitioner had been issued with a building permit, but in an inspection conducted it was found that the construction was in violation of the permit, which was why a stop memo as well as an order of revocation of the building permit had been issued to the petitioner. It is submitted that on 16.8.2016 the petitioner submitted the completion plan before the 1st respondent, but the petitioner was informed that the said request cannot be considered since the permit stood cancelled and the petitioner was directed to submit an application for regularisation. It is submitted that though an application was submitted by the petitioner for regularisation on 31.5.2018, the same was incomplete and that the petitioner had been required to submit a proper application which was considered and referred to the 3rd respondent. It is stated that the 3rd respondent, by letter dated 18.12.2018, had replied that there is violation of the DTP Scheme and had directed to cure the Scheme. It is submitted that on 14.8.2019, an adalath was convened in the Municipality and it was decided not to insist on the compliance of the DTP Scheme as the Municipal Council had decided to reduce the width of the proposed road to 14 metres. It was also decided to renew the building permit and issue occupancy certificate, if the application is otherwise in compliance with the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. It is stated that though t