Sreen i Parameswaran v State of Kerala & Others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN** **MONDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 16TH MAGHA, 1945** **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONER:** **SREENI PARAMESWARAN,AGED 48 YEARS SON OF M.G. PARAMESWARAN,NAIR, VILLA NO.1, MYSTIC BELLS, KANIYAMPUZHA ROAD, EROOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682306** **BY ADVS. S.VINOD BHAT ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN GREESHMA CHANDRIKA.R V.NAMITHA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001** - **2 DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER LSGD PLANNING, IDUKKI COLONY. P.O IDUKKI, PIN - 685602** - **3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, THODUPUZHA, MOUNT SENAI HOSPITAL ROAD, THODUPUZHA,IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685585** - **4 THE SECRETARY, ADIMALI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ADMIALI P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685561** - **5 THE HOTEL AND RESTAURANTS APPROVAL AND CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE (HRACC) (SOUTH), REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR AND CONVENER,SOUTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE, 154, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI, PIN - 600002** - **6 BABU GEORGE, AGED 69 YEARS S/O GEORGE,PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE,** **P.B. NO.8, ADIMALI P.O. ,** **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 2 :** **IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685561** **7 PREETI SURESH, AGED 40 YEARS KAKUCHIRAPUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, MARADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686673** **8 HOTEL AND RESTAURANT APPROVAL AND CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE (HRACC), MINISTRY OF TOURISM, CI HUTMENTS, DALHOUSIE ROAD, NEW DELHI- REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL, PIN - 110001** **BY ADVS. SR.GP.SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY ABDUL JAWAD K., SC, ADIMALY GRAMA PANCHAYAT R-8 and 5 S.KRISHNA S.RADHAKRISHNAN P.MARTIN JOSE ADITYA THEJUS KRISHNAN RAAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN JOJI GEORGE JACOB P.PRIJITH THOMAS P.KURUVILLA R.GITHESH AJAY BEN JOSE MANJUNATH MENON HARIKRISHNAN S. S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 3 :** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner states that the 6[th ] respondent had purchased 3.03 ares of landed property with a building having a built-up area of 5211 sq. ft., as per registered deed No. 720/1/2017 on the files of SRO, Devikulam and the structural works, as per building permit No. D620/12(23) dated 04-02-2013, were completed. The 6[th ] respondent, by Ext. P1, applied for regularization of the construction before the 4[th] respondent, the Secretary of Panchayat, under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Building (Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction) Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regularisation Rules').Upon receiving Ext.P1 application, the 4[th] respondent prepared Ext.P2 report under Form **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 4 :** 1B of the Regularisation Rules wherein it is reported that there is a total built-up area of 1106.29 sq mts, with a floor area of 927.49 sq mts and that out of the 6 required car parking spaces, only 4 have been provided, and a Fire NOC is required. 2.The 1[st ] respondent, through the Committee constituted under Rule 6(9) of the Regularisation Rules and comprising of the District Town Planner, the Deputy Director of Panchayat and the Secretary of the Panchayat (respondents 2, 3, and 4, respectively), issued Ext. P3 order on Ext.P1 application imposing certain conditions. It is stated therein that, upon satisfying those conditions, the 4[th] respondent would issue the order for regularization. The conditions specified in Ext. P3 are, _inter alia,_ as follows: **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 5 :** “a. Provision of ramp as per KPBR, Rule 104. b. Toilet as per KPBR, Rule 104. c. To ensure that the area of the parking facility provided is as per KPBR. d. To ensure that the permission/ sanction from other agencies are obtained.” Nevertheless, the 4[th ] respondent, who was to act in terms of Ext. P3 order, issued Ext. P4 intimation to the 6[th ] respondent mentioning only the condition of submitting a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the concerned departments. The 4[th ] respondent through Ext. P5 communication, intimated the 6[th] respondent about the remittance of compounding fee, pursuant to which the 6[th] respondent submitted Ext. P6 informing the Secretary the compliance **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 6 :** and furnishing of the indemnity bond. The petitioner contends that Exts. P4 to P6 were issued in disregard of the conditions for regularization stipulated in Ext.P3 order, inasmuch as there is omission of certain conditions specified in Ext. P3. The petitioner also states that Ext. P8 information obtained under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) reveals that, in fact, the 6[th] respondent did not make available the Fire NOC and NOC from the Pollution Control Board for the construction. 3. The petitioner states that, pursuant to orders issued by the 4[th] respondent, Ext. P9 license was granted to the 6[th ] respondent to run a hotel and accommodation business in the said building. Subsequently, based on Ext. P9, the 7[th] respondent, acting as a lessee of the 6[th] **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 7 :** respondent, applied for the classification of the hotel and lodging businesses with the Hotel and Restaurant Approval and Classification Committee (HRRACC) (South) and HRRACC, Ministry of Tourism, New Delhi, the respondents 5 and 8 respectively. It is contended that the 6[th] respondent would be relying on Exts. P3 to P6, which are circumspect, for the issuance of classification. The petitioner states that being aggrieved by Exts. P4, P9 and orders passed by the statutory respondents, this writ petition is filed. The petitioner has also sought for direction to respondents 5 and 8, not to act upon Exts. P4 and P9 while considering the application for classification/accreditation of the 6[th] /7[th] respondent’s hotel. ## 4. This Court, by interim order dated **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 8 :** 11.10.2023, directed respondents 5 and 8 not to act upon Exts. P4 and P9, pending disposal of the writ petition. 5. The 2[nd] respondent, the District Town Planner has filed a Statement wherein it is stated that on scrutiny of the application for regularization, the 2[nd] respondent had pointed out violations such as set back excess coverage, excess FAR, deficient car parking, lack of toilet and ramp as per Rule 104 of Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 (KPBR), lack of NOC from relevant departments. As per Rule 6(10) of the Regularisation Rules, the Committee considered the merits of the application and drawings and issued orders according sanction for regularisation with certain conditions and forwarded the same to the Secretary of the **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 9 :** Panchayat. It is stated that while compounding fee and additional compounding fees can be remitted for other violations, it is mandatory to follow Rule 104 of the KPBR. It is further stated that since the construction of the toilet and ramp for disabled persons can be done even after the completion of the building, the Committee decided to consider the regularisation application and orders were issued to the Secretary to regularize the construction after rectifying the violations as per Rule 104 of KPBR and obtaining NOC from the relevant department. It is stated that there are no mistakes or lapses on the part of the 2[nd] respondent. 6. The 4[th] respondent, the Secretary of the Panchayat, has filed a counter affidavit stating that the 6[th] respondent submitted Ext. P1 **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 10 :** application for regularization and the application was then presented before the District Level Committee, along with the plan and other documents. The Committee granted regularization of the construction, subject to conditions, as per Ext. P3 order. He conducted an inspection and confirmed that the 6[th ] respondent had complied with condition Nos. 1, 3, and 4 stipulated in Ext. P3. It is for this reason that he specifically mentioned condition No. 2 stipulated in Ext. P3 as a condition yet to be complied with, in Ext. P4 communication. After the filing of the writ petition, upon the application of the 6[th] respondent, he caused a further inspection through the Assistant Engineer and the Overseer who submitted Ext. R4(a) report, and is satisfied that the 6[th ] respondent had complied with all the **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 11 :** conditions stipulated in Ext. P3. He states that he further verified that out of six off street parking spaces as per law, the 6[th] respondent has provided only four parking spaces and has paid compounding fees for the remaining two. He also states that he subsequently verified that the 6[th] respondent had obtained the Fire NOC and the consent of the Pollution Control Board before issuing Ext. P9 license. It is averred that Ext. P8 reply given under the RTI Act to the contrary was a mistake. With regard to the averment of the petitioner that the 4[th] respondent had in Ext. P4 intimation mentioned only one condition, _ie_ ; condition of submitting NOC from the concerned departments, he states that he was satisfied as to the compliance of the other conditions during the inspection conducted after Ext.P3. The 4[th] **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 12 :** respondent states that Exts.P4 and P9 are issued strictly in accordance with law, and there is no _mala fides_ in issuing Ext.P5. 7. The 6[th] respondent, the owner of the building has filed a counter affidavit, contending, _inter alia,_ that the petitioner is neither an aggrieved person nor a person having any _locus standi_ to approach this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the petitioner has not disclosed his identity or interest in filing the writ petition and it is solely based on business rivalry, with the intention of preventing the party respondents from operating the hotel. It is further contended that Ext.P4 is dated 11.12.2019, and challenging it after about four years would suggest that the writ petition is **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 13 :** motivated by _mala fides_ . 8. It is stated by the 6[th] respondent that after purchasing the property, he carried out additional construction in the existing building and submitted Ext.P1 application for regularization under Rule 3 of the Regularisation Rules. The 4[th ] respondent verified the application and prepared Ext.P2 Report. The matter was then placed before the Town Planner under Rule 6(2) of the Regularisation Rules. Upon consideration of the report, the Town Planner placed the matter to the Committee constituted under Rule 6(8) of the said Rules. The Committee considered the matter and issued Ext P3 order. In Ext.P3 order, it was stipulated that the Panchayat Secretary will have to ensure the construction of the ramp and toilet as per Rule **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 14 :** 104 of the KPBR, a special provision for physically disabled persons. It is asserted that he had complied with all the provisions of Rule 104 of KPBR and constructed ramp and toilets during the time of construction itself, provided arrangements for easy manoeuvring of wheelchair, lifts and water closet for the use of physically disabled persons and the Secretary of the Panchayat was satisfied with the compliance of the Rules. Regarding the facilities for car park, it is stated that although only 6 car parks were required, he had provided for 10 car parks; as per Ext.P2 report there were defects pointed out in respect of 2 car parks, and for regularising the same, he had remitted a sum of Rs.4,00,000 as compounding fee. As regards the Fire NOC and NOC from the Pollution Control Board, it is stated **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 15 :** that he has obtained Ext.R6(c) certificate of approval dated 28.09.2020 from the Department of Fire and Rescue Services which was renewed by Ext.R6(d) till 28.02.2024, and further the Kerala State Pollution Control Board has issued Ext. R6(e) consent to operate dated 01.11.2021 which is valid up to 31.08.2026. It is further stated that he executed an indemnity bond as provided under Rule 6(13) of the Regularisation Rules and on complying with all the conditions stipulated, the construction was regularised and the Panchayat granted Ext.P9 license dated 17.04.2023 to the 7[th] respondent to conduct a hotel and lodging business for a period of one year from 12.04.2023 to 31.03.2024.It is stated that the 4[th] respondent issued Ext.R6(f) certificate dated 27.10.2023 stating that the **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 16 :** construction of the building was regularised after satisfying all the conditions in Rule 104 of KPBR and the Regularisation Rules and that the filing of the writ petition is an abuse of process of Court and none of the rights of the petitioner has been infringed to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. It is further stated that the 6[th] respondent had availed huge amounts as loan for the construction of the building and the writ petition has been filed solely on the basis of business rivalry and to prevent him from operating the hotel. 9. The 7[th] respondent, the lessee of the building, has filed a counter affidavit denying the averments in the writ petition and supporting the contentions of the 6[th ] respondent. It is stated that the cause espoused by the petitioner is in ## **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 17 :** the nature of a public interest litigation without conforming to the procedure prescribed thereunder and the writ petition itself is not maintainable. She states that she took the building on lease from the 6[th] respondent for conducting a Bar Hotel. All the conditions in Ext. P3 order have been complied with by the 6[th] respondent. On the consent issued by the 6[th] respondent, she was issued with Ext.P9 trade license dated 17.04.2023 which is valid till 31.03.2024. It is stated that she applied for star classification of the hotel before the 5[th] respondent with the required documents, including Ext P9 trade license. Following this, the 5[th] respondent conducted an inspection on 11.10.2023. She prays for dismissal of the writ petition with costs. **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 18 :** 10. Heard Ms. Anagha Lakshmy Raman, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel for the 6[th] respondent, Mr. S.Sreekumar, the learned senior counsel for the 7[th] respondent, Mr. Abdul Jawad, the learned Standing Counsel for the 4[th] respondent and Mrs. Amminikutty, the learned Senior Government Pleader. 11. The _locus standi_ of the petitioner to institute the writ petition is challenged by respondents 6 and 7. It is contended by Mr. Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel for the 6[th] respondent, that the writ petition has been filed solely based on business rivalry, with the intention of preventing the party respondents from operating the Bar hotel. It is submitted that the petitioner is running a Bar hotel near the **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 19 :** premises of the 6[th] respondent. The petitioner has not disclosed his identity or interest in filing the writ petition. 12. It is contended by Mr. S. Sreekumar, the learned senior counsel for the 7[th] respondent that the reliefs sought for in the writ petition can be considered only in a public interest litigation as the cause projected is of a public interest. The learned senior counsel submits that the 7[th] respondent took the building on lease from the 6[th ] respondent for conducting a Bar hotel and the writ petition was filed when she applied for star classification of the hotel. The learned senior counsel would urge this Court to dismiss the writ petition with exemplary costs. 13. It is true that the writ petition does not **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 20 :** disclose the particulars and identity of the petitioner, nor does it state how he is aggrieved by the impugned orders. Rule 146 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 deals with proceedings under Articles 226, 227 and 228 of the Constitution of India and reads as follows.- “146. Contents of the applications.—Every application shall set out the provision of law under which it is made, the name and description of the petitioner and the respondent, a clear and concise statement of facts, the grounds on which the relief is sought and the relief sought shall be signed by petitioner and by his Advocate, if he has appointed one, as in Form No. 10. Provided that no petition shall be entertained by the Registry unless it contains a statement as to whether the petitioner had filed any petition seeking **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 21 :** similar reliefs in respect of the same subject-matter earlier and if so, the result thereof.” The said Rule, read in conjunction with Form No.10, implies that the description of the petitioner and the respondent required to be set out in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be confined to their name and address, but shall be descriptive. When the Rule provides to set out a clear and concise statement of facts in the application, it implies that the description of the petitioner and the respondent shall be set out in the application. The writ petition is marked by stoic silence regarding the description pertinent to the petitioner, his identity or his interest in filing the writ petition. It starts with the description of the **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 22 :** respondents, but leaves it up to the Court to guess the standing of the petitioner. It is obligatory for the petitioner to disclose his identity and interest in filing the writ petition, or else, an adverse inference has to be drawn against him. I state so, particularly in the light of the averment in the counter affidavit filed by the 6[th] respondent that the writ petition has been filed solely on the basis of business rivalry to prevent the party respondents from operating the hotel, which averment has not been traversed or denied by the petitioner. 14. In **John Chandy and others** _**v**_ **. District Collector, Kottayam and others 2021 (4) KHC 57; 2021 (4) KLT 528]** , this Court considered the rationale underlying the theory of _locus standi_ and held as follows:- **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 23 :** “19. The rationale underlying the theory of _locus standi_ being to adjust the conflicts between the public interest, _viz_ , the desirability of encouraging individual citizens to participate actively in the enforcement of the law, and the undesirability of encouraging the professional litigant and the meddlesome interloper to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts in matters that do not concern him, I am of the view that the question relating to _locus standi_ to seek relief in a case of this nature needs to be considered liberally and it has to be held that individuals would be entitled to approach the court for relief, if they can show that they have some interest or a special interest to complain of in respect of the illegality which the members of the general public may not have. The objection taken by the seventh respondent as to the _locus standi_ of the **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 24 :** petitioners to institute the writ petition, in the circumstances, is liable to be rejected and I do so.” The petitioner has failed to show that he has some interest or any special interest to complain of the orders impugned. It is trite law that whenever there is a public wrong or public injury caused by an act or omission of the State or a public authority which is contrary to the Constitution or the law, any member of the public acting _bona fide_ and having sufficient interest can maintain an action for redressal of such public wrong or public injury. However, the _bona fides_ of the person who files the petition is significant and the Court should ensure that there is no personal or private interest behind the litigation. **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 25 :** ## 15. In **K.D. Sharma** _**v**_ **. Steel Authority of India Limited, [(2008) 12 SCC 481]** , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- “24. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Art.32 and of the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. 25. The underlying object has been **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 26 :** succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in the leading case of R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, (1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJ KB 257 : 116 LT 136 in the following words: "[I]t has been for many years the rule of the Court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the Court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts- it says facts, not law. He must not mistate the law if he can help it; the Court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts; and the penalty by which the Court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it the Court will set aside any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement". (emphasis supplied) 26. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary power a Writ Court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the Court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the Court, the Court may dismiss **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 27 :** the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating "We will not listen to your application because of what you have done". The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. 27. In Kensington Income Tax Commissioner, Viscount Reading, C. J. observed: "Where an ex parte application has been made to this Court for a rule nisi or other process, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the affidavit in support of the applicant was not candid and did not fairly state the facts, the Court ought, for its own protection and to prevent an abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed any further with the examination of the merits. This is a power inherent in the Court, but one which should only be used in cases which bring conviction to the mind of the Court that it has been deceived. Before coming to this conclusion a careful examination will be made of the facts as they are and as they have been stated in the applicant's affidavit, and everything will be heard that can be urged to influence the view of the Court when it reads the affidavit and **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 28 :** knows the true facts. But if the result of this examination and hearing is to leave no doubt that this Court has been deceived, then it will refuse to hear anything further from the applicant in a proceeding which has only been set in motion by means of a misleading affidavit". (emphasis supplied) 28. The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art.32 or of a High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play 'hide and seek' or to 'pick and choose' the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of Writ Courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 29 :** qualification. This is because, "the Court knows law but not facts". 29. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commissioners is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and 'clean breast' cannot hold a writ of the Court with 'soiled hands'. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, maneuvering or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the Court, the Court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the Court does not reject the petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court.” The petitioner has not come forward with all the facts before this Court and there is no disclosure **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 30 :** of his identity and interest. In view of the uncontroverted averments of the 6[th] respondent that the writ petition has been filed solely on the basis of business rivalry, it can safely be inferred that there is personal interest and private motive behind filing the writ petition. The writ petition lacks _bona fide_ and is liable to be dismissed. 16. It is contended by Ms. Anagha that, though in Ext.P3 order, four conditions were stipulated for regularisation of the construction carried out by the 6[th] respondent, in Ext. P4 intimation, the 4[th] respondent had mentioned only the condition of submitting NOC from the concerned departments, and therefore, all consequential proceedings thereto including Ext. P9 trade licence are issued in disregard of the conditions for regularization stipulated in Ext.P3. **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 31 :** Ms. Anagha also refers to the information obtained from the Panchayat under the RTI Act to show that the 6[th] respondent did not make available the Fire NOC and NOC from the Pollution Control Board. 17. Rule 6 (10) of the Regularisation Rules empowers the Committee to issue orders according sanction to the Secretary for regularisation, with or without conditions. Ext. P3 order was issued by the Committee on Ext. P1 application imposing certain conditions for . regularisation The conditions specified in Ext. P3 are, provision of ramp, toilet as per Rule 104 of the KPBR, parking facility as per KPBR and sanction from other agencies. It is stated by the Secretary of the Panchayat that the 6[th] respondent had provided the ramp and toilet as **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 32 :** per Rule 104 of the KPBR even at the time of the inspection and it was for the said reason that in Ext.P4, only one condition from among the four conditions in Ext.P3 was stated. The 6[th] respondent has stated in the counter affidavit that he had provided ramp and toilet facilities at the time of construction itself and had paid compounding fees in respect of the defects pointed out with respect to the car parking facility and that the only condition that remained to be fulfilled is the NOC from the Fire and Rescue Services and consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board. Therefore, the explanation submitted by the Secretary for non mentioning of three conditions of Ext.P3 in Ext.P4 has to be accepted. With regard to the fire NOC from the Fire and Rescue Services and **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 33 :** consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board, the 6[th] respondent has obtained the same as is evident from Ext. R6(c) and R6(e) documents. The Secretary has stated in his affidavit that a mistake had crept in Ext. P8 reply under the RTI Act in this regard. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the 6[th] respondent has not complied with the conditions in Ext.P3 with regard to the NOC from the statutory departments, also cannot be sustained. As per the affidavit of the Secretary, it is after obtaining NOC from the statutory departments, Ext. P9 trade licence was issued. In the said circumstances, I cannot agree with the arguments of Ms. Anagha that Ext.P4 is issued in violation of the conditions in Ext. P3. Therefore, consequential challenge to Ext.P9 also cannot be **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 34 :** sustained. Further, the challenge against Ext. P4 is highly belated. Thus, even on merits, this Court is convinced that no case has been made out for an interference with the orders impugned. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Though this is a fit case for imposition of costs, taking note of the zeal and enthusiasm shown by Ms. Anagha, a young lawyer pitted against senior counterparts in her efforts to present the case, which deserves a rich encomium, I choose to refrain from doing so. **Sd/MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** SB ## **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 35 :** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** - **EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF APPLICATION MADE BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT (WITH ENCLSOURES)** - **EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF REPORT UNDER FORM 1B PREPARED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT 3 COPY OF ORDER DATED 14-11-2019 PASSED BY RESPONDENTS 2, 3 AND 4 ON EXT.P1 APPLICATION** - **EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF INTIMATION DATED 11-12-2019 FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF INTIMATION DATED 29-11-2019 OF 4TH ESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF LETTER DATED 14-01-2020 SENT BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO 4TH RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF APPLICATION UNDER RTI DATED 27-072023 MADE BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF REPLY DATED 19-08-2023 OF 4TH RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF LICENCE DATED 17-04-2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO 7TH RESPONDENT** ## **RESPONDENT EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE R6(A) EXISTENCE OF THE RAMP FOR THE FREE INGRESS AND EGRESS OF THE PWD AND THE TOILETS IN THE HOTEL** **EXHIBIT A TRUE COPY OF THE CAR PARKING AREA SHOWING R6(B) THE CAR PARKS WITH RAMP ACCESS** **EXHIBIT A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED** ## **WP(C) NO. 33571 OF 2023 : 36 :** **R6(C) 28.09.2020 OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES** **EXHIBIT A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED R6(D) 28.02.2023** **EXHIBIT A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF CONSENT R6(E) TO OPERATE PUTHENPURAYIL REGENCY AT ADIMALY ISSUED BY THE PCB** **EXHIBIT A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED R6(F) 27.10.2023 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY ADIMALY GRAMA PANCHAYAT** **EXHIBIT TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL R 7(A) ISSUED BY THE FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, DATED 28-09-2020** **EXHIBIT TRUE COPY OF NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE R 7(B) ISSUED BY THE FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICE DATED 28-02-2023,** **EXHIBIT 10. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL R 7(C) BOARD ISSUED CONSENT DATED 01-11-2021 AND IS VALID UPTO 31-08-2026** **EXHIBIT TRUE COPY OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT INTIMATED R 7(D) ME LETTER THROUGH E-MAIL THAT INSPECTION WILL BE CONDUCTED ON 11-10-2023** **EXT.R4(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT INSPECTION REPORT SUBMITTED THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER AND THE OVERSEER, LSGD, ADIMALI DATED 26/10/2023**