RAMANKUTTY Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER PALGHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner purchased an item of property in R. S No. 1522 of Pirayari Amsom from one P. V. Menon by registered document dated 11-4-1988. Before the sale, and on 18-4-1986, the vendor had obtained permission Ext. P1 from the first respondent Municipal Commissioner for construction of a building in the property, as per the site plan and detailed plan, copies of which are Exts. P1(a) and P1(b). The construction was under way when the property was purchased by the petitioner.

(2.) After the purchase, the petitioner felt the necessity for some changes, and consequent deviation in the approved plan Ext. P1(b), to suit his requirements. He was making arrangements to get a revised plan approved, when the notice Ext. P2 dated 6-6-1988 was issued under S.247(1) of the Kerala Municipalities Act calling upon him to stop the construction. This was followed by another notice of even date under S.248 to stop further construction of the building. The petitioner objected to the notices by sending Ext. P3 reply on. 11-6-1988. Before any order on the objections was received, the petitioner applied by Ext. P5 on 22-6-1988 for permission to construct the building as per the revised plan submitted by him. No orders have so far been passed on this application. But the petitioner was informed in reply to Ext. P4, by the proceedings Ext. P6 dated 7-7-1988, that the "building construction licence" issued to the vendor - P. V. Menon was not transferable under S.363(2)of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1961 (the Act) The petitioner was therefore directed to apply afresh for the licence through the Palghat Development Authority. He was also directed to stop the building construction work till grant of the new licence, failing which prosecution was threatened The petitioner challenges Ext. P6.

(3.) After having heard counsel on both sides, I am of the opinion that Ext. P6 is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed. S.363 contains general provisions regarding licences and permissions. Sub clause (1) provides that every licence and permission granted under the Act shall specify the period for which, and the restrictions, limitations and conditions, subject to which, the same is granted and shall be signed by the Commissioner. Sub clause (2) states that every licence issued by the Commissioner shall specify the person to whom, the premises in respect of which, and the trade or business or undertaking for which, the licence is granted. For any change, in the person, the premises or the business, trade or undertaking a fresh licence or permission shall be taken with or without payment of further fee as the council may fix. It is sub clause (2) that is relied on in Ext. P6 to hold that Ext. P1 licence is not transferable and that the petitioner cannot avail of the same for the further construction of the building. The question is whether S.363(2) applies to permissions granted for purposes of constructing or reconstructing a building.