PAREED P.S v. KUNNATHUNAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH

WP(C).No. 19962 of 2011 (U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1COPY OF THE APPLICATION AND THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ON 20/04/2011.EXT.P2COPY OF THE WRITTEN FOR ASSESSMENT OF BUILDING TAX IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 20/04/2011.EXT.P3COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 30/04/2011.EXT.P4COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE OVERSEER.EXT.P5COPY OF THE APPROVED PLAN OF THE BUILDING.EXT.P6COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH.EXT.P7COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 04/04/2011 SUBMITTED TO THE RESPONDENT IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM FOR CONSTRUCTION/ ESTABLISHMENT/INSTALLATION OF THE FACTORY WITHOUT THE ENCLOSED DOCUMENT.EXT.P8ACOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE RESPONDENT PANCHAYATHDATED 04/04/2011 TO THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM.EXT.P8BCOPY OF THE NO OBJECTION ISSUED BY THE DMO BY COMMUNICATION DATED 23/05/2011 TO THE RESPONDENT.EXT.P9ACOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE PANCHAYATH DATED 04/04/2011 ADDRESSED TO THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES.EXT.P9BCOPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 06/06/2011ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT BY THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICE.EXT.P10COPY OF THE VERIFICATION REPORT NO.WBI/SLC.NO.6585 FC(3) 1340/2011.EXT.P11COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 07/03/2011.EXT.P12COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO. 13478/2011.EXT.P13COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 15/06/2011.(P.T.O.) WP(C).No.

19962 of 2011 (U) EXT.P14COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24/06/2011 INTIMATING THE DECISION OF THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE.EXT.P15COPY OF THE CONSENT TO ESTABLISH VENEER UNIT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 01/10/2011.EXT.P16COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 12/10/2011.EXT.P17COPY OF THE APPLICATION ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH DATED 07/10/2011.EXT.P18COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 16/01/2012 ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE EARLIER APPLICATION DATED 30/12/2011 FOR ISSUE OF LICENCE.RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.R1COPY OF THE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 24/01/2011.EXT.R1ACOPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER DATED 10/02/2011.//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.....................................W.P.C.NO.19962/2011.......................................Dated this the 6th day of March , 2012.JUDGMENTChallenge is against Ext.P13 and P14. Thecommittee of the respondent Panchayath adopted aresolution on 15.06.2011, cancelling the BuildingNumber assigned in favour of the petitioner.

The Secretary of the Panchayath had grantedpermit for construction of an industrial shed engagedin 'Carpentry works'. It is evident from Ext.P13 that, the committee found that the Permit was obtained forconstruction of a 'Carpentry Store' with a plinth area of27.57 M2, but in the application for getting occupancycertificate the nature of the building was seen changedas 'Carpentry Shop' and the plinth area was seenincreased to 210.76M2. The committee also found that, approval from the District Town Planner was necessary W.P.C.NO.19962/20112for construction of such a building. Since thepetitioner has not obtained any such approval andsince objections were received from the residents inthe locality, the committee found that the permit wasobtained by misrepresentation. Hence, even onrejecting the opinion of the Secretary to affordopportunity to the petitioner, the committee resolved tocancel the Building Number assigned. Ext.P14 is theconsequential notice issued by the Secretaryintimating the decision of the committee and alsointimating about cancellation of the building number.

Petitioner is seeking to quash Exts.P13 and P14mainly on the ground that the committee has nocompetence and jurisdiction. He points out that the Building in question was constructed in accordancewith an approved plan. Subsequently, the Secretaryhad also permitted regularisation of the construction, W.P.C.NO.19962/20113with respect to certain violations pointed out, aftercollecting the requisite compounding fee. It is alsopointed out that, for running the industrial unit, thepetitioner had obtained all requisite consents, permissions and licenses from various authorities. Inspite of that the application seeking installationpermission has not been considered and disposed of bythe respondent Panchayath.

Standing counsel appearing for the respondentPanchayath contended that the petitioner had obtainedthe building permit by misrepresentation of facts. It isalso alleged that the building was constructed indeviation from the approved plan and in violation ofvarious provisions of the Building Rules. It is undersuch circumstance, the Committee had resolved tocancel the building number assigned.

Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out W.P.C.NO.19962/20114that, assigning of building number is a matter withinthe competence of the Secretary, as per Section 235 ofthe Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994. He also pointedout that, Section 185B of the Act prohibits interferenceby the committee with respect to exercise of suchpower vested on the Secretary. Reliance is also placedon the decision of this court in DharmadomParisthithi Samrakshana Samithi V.DharmadomGrama Panchayath (2010 (2) KLT 194).

Considering the contentions, I take note of thefact that there is a Building Permit issued in favour ofthe petitioner approving the plan, which standsrevised. subsequently, as per Ext.P5. No steps wasseen taken for cancellation of the said building permitat any point of time, on the basis of any allegation thatit was obtained through misrepresentation of facts. The Secretary has not taken any steps for cancellation W.P.C.NO.19962/20115of the permit, exercising power under Rule 19 of the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules, 2011. Theconstruction of the building stands completed and itwas already assigned with building number. No stepsunder Section 235W was seen initiated at any point oftime, alleging any unauthorised construction. Thecommittee has no original jurisdiction vested on it tocancel the building number, that too withoutcancellation of the building permit, or without takingany action for demolition of unauthorised constructionif any. Hence I am of the opinion that Exts.P13 andP14 cannot withstand the test of sustainability underlaw.

It is made clear that this judgment will notstand in the way of the competent authority taking any W.P.C.NO.19962/20116steps permissible under law for cancellation of thepermit or for directing demolition of the building if it isan unauthorised construction. It is also made clearthat the petitioner will be at liberty to pursue theapplication for installation permission and theauthority concerned will be at liberty to consider thesame and to take appropriate decision thereof. Sd/-C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGETRUE COPYPA TO JUDGERKM