Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext. P4 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. By the impugned order, the appeal filed by the 2nd respondent had been allowed, thereby cancelling the building permit in favour of the petitioner. 3. During the pendency of the above writ petition, the Government issued a notification on 14.2.2014 promulgating Kerala Municipality Building (Regularization of Unauthorized Construction) Rules, 2014. As per the aforesaid Rules, if any person wants to regularize unauthorized construction, he/she will have to file an application before the Secretary of the Municipality/Corporation and the Secretary shall, if the said application is in order, forward the same to the Government, who has power under Rule 5 to pass appropriate orders. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had already submitted application to the Municipality, which is pending consideration and therefore as matters stand now, the limited relief sought for is a direction to dispose of Ext. P8 application in accordance W.P(C) No. 4995 of 2012 -: 2 :-
with law.
4. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent however submits that even if the said application is considered, regularization cannot be granted in view of the proviso to Rule 5(2), which inter alia states that regularization of unauthorized construction which does not conform to the provisions of Section 383A of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, shall not be allowed by the Government.
5. The above contention is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contending that his being a small plot, Chapter 8 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules applies and therefore Rule 5(2) will have no application.
6. I am not rendering any finding on the merits of the above said contention as it is a disputed fact, which has be considered by the Government in appropriate proceedings.
7. Having regard to the limited relief sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of as under: There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext. P8 and forward the same to the additional 3rd respondent, if the same is in order and complying W.P(C) No. 4995 of 2012 -: 3 :-
with the procedure prescribed under the rules aforesaid, who shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent.
Tds/ Sd/-
A.M. Shaffique, Judge.