The petitioner had applied for permission to the first respondent Corporation to carry out the reconstruction work of a line building containing shop rooms. As per Exhibit P3 dated 25.02.2013, the first respondent had sought for objections of the second respondent as required by sub rule 5 of the Rule 5 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short). Though Exhibit P3 communication was addressed to the second respondent, the said authority has not responded to the communication, till date, according to the counsel for the first respondent. The petitioner has therefore sought for the issue of appropriate directions to the first respondent to process the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law. 2. Advocate V.E.Abdul Gafoor appears for the first respondent. The Assistant Solicitor General of India ('ASGI' for short) appears for respondents 2 to 4.
3. According to the counsel for the first respondent, the application submitted by the petitioner was not processed for the only reason that the objections of the second respondent had not been received. According to the ASGI, the second respondent is in the process of responding to Exhibit P3.
3. Heard. Sub Rule 5 of Rule 7 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules reads as follows:-
7. Application for building permit
1. .....
2. .....
3. .....
4. .....
5. In the case of an application to construct or reconstruct a building or make alteration or addition or extension to a building or make or enlarge any structure within a distance of 100 metres from any property maintained by the Defence Establishment, the Secretary shall consult the officer-in-charge of the said establishment, before the permission is granted. Such Officer shall furnish his reply within 30 days from the date of receipt of the consultation letter if such establishment has any objection to the proposed construction. The objections raised by the officer within the said 30 days shall be duly considered by the Secretary before issuing permit.
As per the above provision, it was incumbent on the second respondent to have responded to Exhibit P3 within a period of 30 days of the receipt thereof, if he had any objection. In the absence of any response, it was certainly open to the first respondent to have processed the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner presuming that the second respondent had no objection to the proposed construction. The second respondent or any other authority cannot take their own sweet time to respond to communications like Exhibit P3 addressed by the local authority. If they had any objection, they ought to have responded to the same within the time limit stipulated by the Rules. In the present case, since it is submitted by the ASGI that the second respondent is in the process of responding to Exhibit P3, the second respondent is granted two weeks time from today to intimate the first respondent whether he has any objection to the proposed construction. If any such communication is received, the first respondent shall consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner, without further delay.
This writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the second respondent to respond to Exhibit P3, if he has any objection to the proposed construction, within a period of two weeks from today. If no objections are received within the time limit stipulated above, the first respondent shall consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner and shall pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of one month of the date of expiry of the time limit of two weeks from today.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE kkj