The imposition of fees without proper evidence and the applicability of municipal regulations were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 26^th day of November, 2025 Petitioners have approached this Court challenging Exts.P4 and P5 and for other consequential reliefs.

2. Petitioners are in joint ownership of 69.308 cents of land comprised in Sy.Nos. 686/4, 686/2, 683/3, 687/7 and 687/8 of Kakkanad Village. Petitioners devised a project for constructing a multi-storied commercial cum residential building with the 6^th respondent for which a ‘No Objection Certificate’ was obtained from the erstwhile Thrikkakkara Grama Panchayat as per sanction certificate No.A4-1 dated 19.09.2006. Petitioners submit that at the relevant point of time, the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules was not extended to Thrikkakkara Grama Panchayat, and only a ‘No Objection Certificate’ was required from the local authority to carry out the construction activities. For construction of the same, Exts.P1 to P3 joint venture agreements were executed with the 6^th respondent. It is during the course of construction the provisions of the KMBR was made applicable to the erstwhile Thrikkakkara Grama Panchayat. While so, the 3^rd respondent conducted audit for the year 2011-12 in respect of the 4^th respondent Municipality. Certain objections were raised as regards the construction undertaken by the petitioners alleging that requisite permit fee/FAR fee is not remitted and there is a deficiency of Rs.13,94,280/-. Based on the same Ext.P4 notice was issued, to which Ext.P5 reply was submitted.

3. Since there was some anomaly regarding the levy of fee while issuing occupancy of the building constructed prior to the implementation of the Rule, Government issued Ext.P6 communication informing that the occupancy certificate can be granted to the building constructed on the basis of the ‘No Objection Certificate’ by imposing fee prevailing at the time of issuance of the NOC. Thereupon petitioner filed Ext.P7 application under Right to Information Act before the 4^th respondent to the genuineness of the objection, to which Ext.P8 reply was given by the Municipality informing that the amount collected from the petitioners is exhorbitant and the fee is fixed as per Ext.P6, and the total amount to be collected is only Rs.1,64,816/-, instead an amount of Rs.58,31,332/- was collected, and thus an amount of Rs.56,66,516/- was collected in excess, and there is no deficiency in the fee collected and therefore the audit objection could be removed. Thereafter no action was taken by respondents 4 and 5. While so, Ext.P9 was issued directing the petitioners to remit an amount of Rs.13,94,280/- within a period of seven days, failing which revenue recovery proceedings will be initiated. It is in the said circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that Exts.P4 and P9 were issued based on the audit reports referred to therein. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relying on the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent especially paragraphs 3 and 4 submits that the 3^rd respondent has informed the 1^st respondent Municipality that charge proceedings may not be continued alleging erroneous calculation of FAR fee due to lack of evidence. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the counter affidavit is extracted below:-

“3. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner constructed a building on the basis of No Objection Certificate dated 19.09.2006. The audit team of Ernakulam District Office audited the annual accounts for the year 2011-12 and an audit report was issued vide LFE(M1)1650/2014 dated 20.04.2015. In para 2-3(d), it was reported that an amount of Rs.13,94,280/- as the loss sustained to the Municipality due to the erroneous calculation of FAR fee of the petitioner’s building. The audit department has not issued charge certificate for the above revenue loss mentioned in the audit report. As per Government order No.37348/06/LSG