The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Exts.P5 and P6 notices issued by respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner had started construction of a building on the strength of a no objection certificate, Ext.P1, since the Kerala Municipality Building Rules were not applicable to the area at that time. Later on, the same was regularized by the petitioner paying the requisite fee and Ext.P4 building permit was issued. The construction is at the stage of completion now. It is in the above circumstances, Exts.P5 and P6 have been issued. Ext.P6 shows that, it has been issued on the directions of the 1st respondent. Therefore, according to Sri.Gokul Das V.V.H counsel for the petitioner, it is the clear case of the authority, acting under dictation covered by the dictum in Mukundan Menon v. State of Kerala [2012 (4) KLT 640].
2. Adv.Sri.Shanavas Khan appears for the respondents 3 and 4.
The learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 1 and 2.
3. Heard. A perusal of Ext.P6 shows that, the 1st respondent has directed therein to cancel the building permit that was granted by the 4th respondent. It has also been made clear in Ext.P6 that, names of the officers, who were responsible issuing the building permit should be provided to the 1st respondent, implying that they are proposed to W.P.(C) No.30217 of 2014 2 be proceeded against departmentally. It is on the basis of Ext.P6 that, Ext.P5 has been issued. Therefore, it is a clear case of the authority acting under dictation. The situation is directly covered by the decision in Mukundan Menon v. State of Kerala (supra). Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to succeed.
This writ petition is therefore allowed. Exts.P5 and P6 are set aside.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
AV