IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 31578 of 2007(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AJAYAN P.V., AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.J.VARGHESE, PULIYANATHUNDATHIL HOUSE, KANAKKARY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (RD)DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, DISTRICT TOWN PLANNING OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 4. KUMARANELLUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KUMARANELLUR KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. SRI. C.S. MANILAL – SC GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 31578 of 2007 EXT.P1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.DBI(2)481/05 DATED 8.2.2005. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.G1-2773/05 DATED 11.5.2005. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.2584/2005/LSGD DATED 29.6.2005. EXT.P4; COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.KSTP/M/83/2004 DATED 26.7.2005. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 22.11.2006. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.276/06-07 DATED 27.11.2006. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE APPROVAL DATED 28.3.2007 FOR THE PROJECT SUBMITTED BY THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.G.O.(MS) NO.195/07/ LSGD DAGED 7.8.07. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.5.2007. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.201/2007/LSGD DATED 1.9.2007. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A4-394/07 DATED 16.10.2007. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.219/2008/LSGD DATED 4.9.2008. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 10.11.2008. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A4-394/07 DATED 14.11.2008. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.31578 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner obtained an exemption from zoning regulations of the Development Plan for Kottayam as per Ext.P3. Thereafter, the petitioner was given a building permit for construction of a building in his property, in respect of which he obtained exemption from zoning regulations. While the construction was going on, by Ext.P11, the 4th respondent directed the petitioner to stop the construction and the petitioner was informed that the building permit is also cancelled because this Court had held that individual exemptions from Town Planning Scheme is not permissible under law and therefore, the Government had, in accordance with that judgment, cancelled all exemption orders granted after 23.11.2005. The petitioner challenges the action of the 4th respondent in cancelling the building permit without notice to the petitioner and against the order of the Government. In the writ petition this Court passed an interim order dated, 24.10.2007 to the following effect: W.P.(c)No.31578/07 2 “Heard Mr. George Poonthottam. He makes out a prima facie case. Admit. Mr. C.S. Manilal takes notice on behalf of R2. Govt. Pleader takes notice on behalf of R1 & R3. Issue notice to R4 by speed post. Post as soon as R4 is served with notice. In the meanwhile, the petitioner is permitted to continue with the construction in terms of the building permit issued in his favour, at his risk. He is reminded that in the event of the writ petition being decided against him, he will become liable to remove the constructions. Considering the above directions, operation of Ext.P11 is stayed”. Now, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P13 application in the matter before the 4th respondent and the petitioner seeks a direction to the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P13 application submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner submits that the pendency of this writ petition is the reason why the 4th respondent is not considering Ext.P13 as stated in Ext.P14. The petitioner, therefore, submits that the writ petition itself may be disposed of with a direction to the 4th respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P13 in accordance with law. 2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat also. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 4th respondent to W.P.(c)No.31578/07 3 consider and pass orders on Ext.P13 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. However, I hasten to add that I have not considered the claim of the petitioner on merits and it is for the 4th respondent – Panchayat to consider the same in accordance with law. The constructions made in accordance with the interim order would be subject to orders to be passed in Ext.P13. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.31578/07 4