IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN TUESDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1943 WP(C) NO.18291 OF 2021 PETITIONER :-

SHIJITH JAYARAM, AGED 35 YEARS S/O.JAYARAM, VETTEKKATTIL HOUSE, MULLASSERY P.O, THRISSUR DIST.

BY ADVS.

V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR P.R.REENA P.S.SIDHARTHAN MAYA M.

RESPONDENTS :-

1 ADAT GRAMAPANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, ADAT ROAD, ADAT P.O, THRISSUR DIST, PIN - 680 551.

2 SECRETARY ADAT GRAMAPANCHAYATH, ADAT ROAD, ADAT P.O, THRISSUR DIST, PIN - 680 551.

BY ADV SRI.K.B.GANGESH, SC, ADAT GRAMA PANCHAYAT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22 ^nd day of February, 2022 This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :- “i. Call for the records leading to Ext.P5 and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Ext.P5.

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the

2^nd respondent to accept Ext.P6 and pass orders thereon, issuing occupancy certificate and numbering petitioner's building constructed as per Ext.P2 building permit, within such time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.”

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

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been granted a building permit for construction of a commercial building by Ext.P2 under the 2011 Rules. After completing the construction of the building, the petitioner had submitted completion certificate and plan for issuance of occupancy certificate. It is submitted that by Ext.P5, certain defects have been pointed out to the petitioner and Ext.P6 representation had also been submitted. However, the respondents did not issue the occupancy certificate to the petitioner.

4. The respondents have placed a statement on record, stating that there is no required space on the northern side of the property and that there is variation from Ext.P1 plan and Ext.P2 permit. It is stated that it was in the above circumstances that Ext.P5 had been issued and that if the petitioner rectifies the defects noticed in Ext.P5, the application can be considered in accordance with law.

5. A reply affidavit has also been placed on record. It is stated therein that since the road on the northern side is a dead- end, the proviso to Rule 23(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules would apply and that only an open yard of 1.5 metres would be required on the northern side of the petitioner's property. It is submitted that there is a mistake in the plan submitted and that the petitioner may be permitted to file a revised plan correcting the aforesaid anomaly so that the application can be considered.

6. After hearing the counsel on either side, I am of the opinion that it is for the petitioner to rectify the defects, if any, in the plan. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there will be a direction that in case the petitioner submits a revised plan, rectifying the defects stated in Ext.P5, the said revised plan and the request made by the petitioner for occupancy certificate shall be considered in accordance with law by the 2^nd respondent, within a period of three weeks from the date of submission of the revised plan.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE Jvt/28.2.2022 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18291/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED SITE PLAN ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 17-04-2018 Exhibit P3 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE CONSTRUCTED BUILDING OF THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE LYE OF PETITIOENR'S PROPERTY Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27-01-2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATE