Manager, Ppm Higher Secondary School vs State Of Kerala

N.Nagaresh, J

The petitioner, who is Manager of a Higher Secondary School in Kottukkara, has approached this Court seeking to declare that the audit objection mentioned in Exts.P2 and P3 is not a ground to deny Fitness Certificate to the buildings of the PPM Higher Secondary School, Kottukkara, if they are structurally safe. The petitioner also seeks to direct the 2nd respondent to process Ext.P4 application for regularisation submitted by the petitioner.

The petitioner states that the petitioner is the Manager of a School, which is known for its excellent performance. The School was set up in Kottukkara in the year 1976. More than 5000 students are undergoing studies in the School. The School has 11 buildings. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not issued Fitness Certificate to the School. The denial of Fitness Certificate by the Municipal Authorities would affect the functioning of the School and even the salary payable to the Teachers will be delayed and denied.

The petitioner submits that a Fitness Certificate is not being issued by respondents 2 and 3 for the reason that certain School buildings are unauthorised constructions. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has submitted application for regularisation of such constructions.

Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that as certain structures are unauthorised, respondents 2 and 3 cannot issue a Fitness Certificate unless the petitioner gets the construction of those buildings regularised. Though the petitioner has submitted an application for regularisation, the application contained certain defects and the petitioner was required to cure the defects. Unless the petitioner cures the defects, a Fitness Certificate cannot be granted.

Government   Pleader   representing   the   1st respondent submitted that it is for respondents 2 and 3 to consider the issue of Fitness Certificate and grant the same if the petitioner is eligible. The Government Pleader submits that the Audit Team of the Government of Kerala made enquiries in the matter and found that there are a number of defects in the construction of the buildings. These defects were brought to the notice of the Municipal Engineer and the Secretary to the Municipality as per Exts.P2 and P3. The petitioner is bound to cure those defects.

The petitioner submits that pursuant to the judgment in W.P.(C) No.23076 of 2022, the application for Building Permit was processed. It was forwarded by the Municipal Authorities to the District Town Planner. The District Town Planner has raised certain objection in the matter as per Ext.P8.

Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the objections raised are all based on the Kerala Municipal Building Rules, 2019 which according to the counsel for the petitioner would not apply to the petitioner’s building. At any rate, the petitioner submitted reply in this regard to the Secretary to the Kondotty Municipality as per Ext.P13. The respondents have not taken a final decision in this regard. Pending the application, if Fitness Certificate is delayed, the petitioner will be put to difficulties.

The Standing Counsel for the Municipality submitted that the Fitness Certificate is insisted for school building in order to secure the life of the pupil studying in the school. Without a Fitness Certificate, if the schools are permitted to function, it will not be in public interest. The buildings constructed by the petitioner are unauthorised. Therefore, the Municipality opposes grant of any relief to the petitioner.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and 4 and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 2 and 3.

It is evident from Ext.P6 that this Court permitted the petitioner to cure the defects in the regularisation application already submitted by him and the respondents were directed to consider the application. From Ext.P8, it is seen that the District Town Planner to whom the Municipal Authorities have forwarded the application, have raised a number of objections. The petitioner has submitted reply to such objections as per Ext.P13. Now, the Secretary to the Municipality will have to forward the objections to the District Town Planner and he have to take a decision in the matter.

As the regularisation application is under process, I am of the view that the petitioner being an educational institution, withholding of Fitness Certificate at this stage would not only affect the petitioner but to the thousands of students studying in the school also.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions.

The Secretary to the Panchayat is directed to forward Ext.P13 objection submitted by the petitioner along with his comments, if any, to the District Town Planner. The 4th respondent-District Town Planner shall take a decision in the matter within a further period of one month. Pending the proceedings, the 3rd respondent is directed to issue a provisional Fitness Certificate to the school of the petitioner.