Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE25H DAY OF FEBRUARY20146TH PHALGUNA, 1935 WP(C).No. 21748 of 2013 (P) ---------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. JOHN M SEBASTIAN S/O SEBASTEN, MANIKAMKUZHY HOUSE, KURIYANADU P.O. MONIPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
2. M.D.MAMAN, S/O SEBASTEN, MANIKAMKUZHY HOUSE, KURIYANADU P.O. MONIPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.JACOB E SIMON RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT) KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT (KSTP) DIVISION DIVISION OFFICE, REST HOUSE COMPOUND MUVATTUPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 661.
2. THE HIGHWAY AUTHORITY AND EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ROADS DIVISION) KERALA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM DIVISION, KOTTAYAM-686 001.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (PWD), NATIONAL HIGHWAYS, PUBLIC OFFICE, MUSEUM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
4. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, KERALA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
5. MARANGATTUPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT MARANGATTUPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-686 635.
6. THE SECRETARY, MARANGATTUPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH MARANGATTUPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 635. R5 & 6 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SOJAN JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2502-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21748 of 2013 (P) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS --------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATD38.2005 ISSUED BY THE6H RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED1910.2005 ISSUED BY THE6H RESPONDENT TO THE2D PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED296.2013 ISSUED BY THE6H RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED132.2009 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DIVISION (ROADS), KOTTAYAM. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED214.2009 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ----------------------------- EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT CLAUSES OF HIGHWAY PROTECTION ACT. EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.11742/H1/2006/PWD DATED1403.2007. EXT.R1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR OF CHIEF ENGINEER EXT.R1(d): TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.KSTP/M/5407/2009 DATED2506.2009. EXT.R1(e): TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.KSTP/M/NOC/VOL.IV/12 DATED1704.12. // TRUE COPY // TKS P.S. TO JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.
------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.21748 of 2013 ------------------------------- Dated 25th February, 2014 JUDGMENT
The petitioners are siblings. They purchased different extents of land comprised in Survey Nos.41/10 and 41/10A of Monippally Village in Kottayam District. In fact, the land comprised in Survey No.41/10 was purchased by the first petitioner and the land comprised in Survey No.41/10A was purchased by the second petitioner. The contention of the petitioners is that they have effected construction thereon in accordance with the provisions and after obtaining the No Objection Certificate from the 6th respondent. After effecting the construction the petitioners approached the 6th respondent for issuing building number to the said construction. It is the delay in the matter of its consideration that constrained the petitioners to approach this Court by filing the captioned writ petition. Though a challenge has been mounted against Ext.P3 when this matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Ext.P3 is not an order passed on the application submitted by the petitioners and it is only an information given to the petitioners under the Right to Information Act. In other words, according to the WP(C).No.21748/2013 2 petitioners, the very application submitted by them for assignment of building number is still pending consideration before the 6th respondent. In the said circumstances, the short prayer of the petitioners is for a direction to the 6th respondent to consider the said application and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law. The learned standing counsel for respondents 5 and 6 sought time for getting instructions. However, the learned Government Pleader submitted that No Objection Certificate was issued by the first respondent and what is the impact of the said certificate on the request of the petitioners and whether the application for building permit could be sanctioned and building number could be assigned are matters for the 6th respondent to decide in exercise of the power vested in him. Taking note of the submission that on the application submitted by the petitioners for assignment of building number no orders have so far been passed this writ petition is disposed of, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions, with a direction to the 6th respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the said application submitted by the petitioners for assignment of building number in respect of the building constructed in the aforementioned property expeditiously and in accordance with law, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the WP(C).No.21748/2013 3 date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Before passing orders thereon, the 6th respondent shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and in which event, it will be open to the petitioners to raise all available contentions before the 6th respondent. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS