A.M.Shaffique, J. The respondent Panchayat in WP(C) No.29659 of 2011 is the appellant herein. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein challenging Ext.P7 stop memo issued by the Panchayat in respect of the building being constructed under Ext.P1 permit. In Ext.P7 the Panchayat called upon the petitioner to obtain a No Objection Certificate from the previous Architect. That apart it was mentioned that documents in terms of Rule 58(12) of Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 has to be produced.
2. The learned Single Judge after considering the respective contentions made by the parties, found that there is no mandate which requires the permit holder to produce a 'no objection certificate' from the earlier Architect, if he has engaged another Architect. As far as the alleged violation under Rule 58(12) is concerned, after referring to the aforesaid rule, learned single Judge noticed that certificate from the Fire Force is required only if the petitioner sought to construct an additional floor over and above the floor to which the petitioner obtained permission. In so far as the same has not been considered by the Panchayat, there is no reason to interdict with Ext.P1. Accordingly Ext.P7 was quashed.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant after referring to the counter affidavit that the building permit was issued on examination of the entire facts relating to it, but the first respondent has not disclosed true and correct facts. It is submitted that there is a complaint that the property was a marshy land and the matter is required to be considered.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. It is argued that in respect of the building in question, no stability certificate has been produced by the petitioner. There is no a provision which requires the property holder to produce a 'no objection certificate' from the previous Architect. No materials are available on record to indicate that the writ petitioner had not produced stability certificate. Though Ext P6 Stability Certificate was not certified by a registered Architect, first respondent produced Ext.P8 Stability Certificate from a Registered Architect. Panchayat has not raised any objection in that regard. In such circumstances, the said ground is not available to the Panchayat.
6. As far as violation of Rule 58(12) is concerned, there is no dispute that Fire Force Certificate is required for the ground floor and two floors. Hence the said reason sated in Ext.P7 is baseless.
7. The grant of permit was in respect of ground floor and first floor. The petitioner had completed the ground floor. In that view of the matter, learned Single Judge has directed the Panchayat to grant partial completion certificate to the petitioner in respect of ground floor. The petitioner is also permitted to apply afresh for renewal of the permit. We are of the view that there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The contention that property was paddy field/ nilam or marshy land is not based on any material and such matters need not be adjudicated by this court in this proceedings.
In the result, there being no good ground to interfere with the judgment of learned single judge, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sou.
Sd/-
ASHOK BHUSHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.
// True copy //