This contempt case is filed by the writ petitioner alleging that the 2nd respondent has started construction of a multistoried commercial building violating the Building Rules, plan etc. and without keeping statutory distance from the PWD Road. The petitioner alleges that the 2nd respondent has given an undertaking before this Court on the basis of which, this Court has passed Annexure I order. The writ petitioner further points out that thereafter also, the 2nd respondent is willfully violating the said order and proceeding with the construction.
2. The learned counsel for the party respondent, who opposed the allegations, submits that no stay was granted by this Court restraining the party respondent from proceeding with the construction.
3. The respondent municipality has filed a counter affidavit stating that on inspection, it was found that in deviation of the approved plan, an open stair was constructed by the party respondent from the second floor to the terrace of the building, which is the subject matter of the writ petition. It is further pointed out that Rule 17 of Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, permits regularization of constructions made in deviation of the approved plan and permit; and hence, the deviation can be regularized. It is further stated that the construction is effected by maintaining 3 meter distance from the PWD road in terms of Rule 26 of Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. It is also stated that the FAR of the building is within the permissible limit as provided under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999.
5. Arguments have been heard.
6. While the learned counsel for the contempt petitioner submits that there was an order by this Court directing the respondent not to make construction in violation of the Building Rules, the learned counsel for the party respondent submits that there was no such direction.
7. I have perused the order dated 31.07.2014. It is true that the learned counsel for the writ petitioner insisted for a stay on 31.07.2014. However, the learned counsel for the party respondent submitted that the construction was only in accordance with the Building Permit and Building Rules obtained from the respondent municipality.
8. Today also, the learned counsel for the party respondent would submit that the construction was only in accordance with the building permit issued by the local authority. In the counter affidavit filed by the local authority also, they have taken the same stand. On 31.07.2014, this Court only recorded the submissions made by both sides; and in fact, no stay was granted. It is true that the construction is going on.
9. Now, as per the present roster, the writ petition is being dealt with another Bench. As there is nothing on record at present to show that any of the orders of this Court has been violated, this Court is of the view that there is no need to proceed with this contempt case.
In the result, this contempt case is dismissed.
However, it shall be open to the writ petitioner to bring subsequent events, if any, which would entitle him for the relief prayed for in the writ petition, to the notice of the Bench dealing with writ petitions.
Sd/-
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE bka/-