IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN MONDAY, THE 31^ST DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 11TH MAGHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 1029 OF 2022 PETITIONER:

SHAJAN MATHEW, AGED 65 YEARS S/O. MATHAI, KOCHUVEMBILLIL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM KARA, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK.

BY ADVS.

ABRAHAM P.GEORGE M.SANTHY RESPONDENTS:

1 THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS, THODUPUZHA P.O, PIN-685 584, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY.

2 SECRETARY, THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS, THODUPUZHA P.O, PIN 685 584.

BY ADV SHRI.UNNIKRISHNAN V.ALAPPATT, SC, THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 31^st day of January, 2022 This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

“(1) Call for the entire records leading to the issuance of the Ext.P14,16 and 18 stop memo/notices to the petitioner alleging violation in the matter of construction to the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act and Kerala Municipal Building Rules and set aside the same by the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or sch other appropriate writ or directions in the interest of justice.

Or In the alternative pass an order directing the 2^nd respondent Secretary, Thodupuzha Municipality to consider the Ext.P15, 17 and 19 objections submitted by the petitioner and also the Ext.P1 to 13 produced by the petitioner herein on merits and dispose the Ext.P14, 16 and 18 proceedings initiated by him in accordance with law within the period of time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been granted a building permit and had almost completed the construction of a residential building complex in the property owned by him. While so, Exhibit P14 stop memo had been issued on 25.11.2021, alleging violation of Rule 23 (2) and 26(10) of the Kerala Municipal Building Rules. Petitioner had submitted his objections to the stop memo and thereafter Exhibit P16 has been issued on 29.11.2021.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Exhibit P17 further reply has been submitted by the petitioner pointing out the factual aspects of the matter and stating that there is absolutely no misrepresentation of facts by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the survey sketch sought for by the Municipality had already been produced by the petitioner as is evident from Exhibit P10. It is submitted that the objections raised by the petitioner in Exhibit P17 are to be considered and an appropriate decision may be taken by the Municipality, taking note of Exhibit P7 judgment passed by the learned Munsiff, the survey sketches and the possession certificates submitted by the petitioner as also considering the contentions in Exhibit P17.

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality submits that the petitioner was only required to submit a revised survey sketch, which has not been done by the petitioner so far. It is submitted that in case, the apprehensions raised by the Municipality in Exhibits P14 and P16 can be satisfactorily explained by the petitioner, an appropriate decision on the stop memos can be taken in accordance with law. It is further submitted that there were complaints received by the Municipality which is the reason for the issuance of Exhibits P14 and P16.

6. Having considered the contentions advanced and in view of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the issue requires a consideration by the 2^nd respondent. Since the petitioner submits that all relevant documents including the survey sketch had already been produced by the petitioner before the Municipality, I am of the opinion that it is for the 2