The petitioner and the 5th respondent are neighbours. Raising grievance against the construction being effected in the property belonging to the 5th respondent that lies contiguous with the property of the petitioner, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 complaint before the second respondent. The contention of the petitioner is that the 5th respondent is effecting construction in violation of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules (for short 'the Rules'). This writ petition has been filed mainly with the following prayers:-
I. a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction compelling the 2nd respondent to take up Ext.P3 and dispose of the same after conducting necessary site inspection.
II. a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling upon the 3rd respondent to examine the construction by the 5th respondent both existing and ongoing and file report before the 2nd respondent to initiate action if any violation is brought to notice.
2. A statement has been filed by the first respondent in this writ petition. It is stated therein that on noticing unauthorised construction being carried out by the 5th respondent, stop memo dated 9.2.2013 was issued to him. Thereafter, the 5th respondent obtained a revised permit as per order dated 22.1.2014. Based on the revised permit, the 5th respondent was effecting further construction. However, on 31.5.2014, the Assistant Engineer attached to the first respondent Corporation conducted a local inspection to the site in question and found that on the eastern side of the building of the 5th respondent and opposite to building of the petitioner, the 5th respondent has constructed a concrete slab in violation of the approved plan. That construction is touching the compound wall of the petitioner. Construction of a concrete ramp on the eastern side of the 5th respondent was also noticed. According to the first respondent, that construction is violative of Rule 24(5) of the Rules. Therefore, stop memo dated 3.6.2014 was issued to the 5th respondent directing to stop further construction and police assistance was also sought for to prevent the fifth respondent from effecting further construction.
3. I have heard the learned counsel of the petitioner and the learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel for the 5th respondent. It is evident from the statement as also the submission made by the learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 that on receipt of Ext.P3 complaint from the petitioner, steps were taken by the said respondents and upon noticing the unauthorised construction, stop memo was issued to the 5th respondent. It is further submitted that since stop memo has been issued to the 5th respondent, it is for the 5th respondent to submit explanation if any. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent submitted that on receipt of the said stop memo, an explanation has been submitted before the second respondent. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the second respondent who is in receipt of the explanation submitted by the 5th respondent has to finalise the proceedings by taking a decision as to whether any coercive steps shall be taken against the construction effected by the 5th respondent or whether the 5th respondent could be permitted to go on with further construction. In such circumstances, without making any observation as to the merits of the rival contentions, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to take a decision on the aforesaid issues after considering the complaint filed by the petitioner and also the reply given by 5th respondent pursuant to the receipt of stop memo issued by the second respondent and finalise the proceedings expeditiously and in accordance with law, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner and the fifth respondent. It is made clear that till finalisation of the said proceedings, the 5th respondent will not be entitled to continue with the construction and in case the 5th respondent continues with the construction, it will be open to respondents 1 to 4 to take appropriate steps, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) spc/ C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT September, 2010