IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34232 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. LOHITHAKSHAN, S/O.ACHUTHAN, AGED 50 YEARS, KODATHUR HOUSE, CHITTANJOOR P.O., KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA. 2. MANOJ KUMAR, S/O.ACHUTHAN, AGED 41 YEARS, KODATHUR HOUSE, CHITTANJOOR P.O., KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.VELLAYANI SUNDARARAJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KUNNAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA-680 503. BY SC SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 34232 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners applied to the Secretary of Kunnamkulam Municipality for a building permit to put up residential apartments on top of an existing commercial building. That application was rejected and the petitioners were informed of the same by Ext.P1 memo dated 15.5.2007. The application for building permit was rejected on the ground that as the land and the existing building are situated in a commercial zone, a residential building cannot be put up therein. Aggrieved by Ext.P1, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Municipal Council. The said appeal was rejected and the decision was communicated to the petitioners by Ext.P2 memo dated 15.11.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners moved the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions by filing a revision petition, R.P. No.42 of 2008. Though the Tribunal held that the revision petition is maintainable, it held that the appeal before the Municipal Council was incompetent. The Tribunal accordingly held that though the order passed by the Secretary is not sustainable, the appeal to the Municipal Council will stand dismissed as not maintainable. Ext.P3 dated 23.5.2008 is the order thus passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The said order has become final. In this writ petition, the petitioners seek the permission of this Court to enable them to file an appeal challenging Ext.P2 before the Tribunal for Local Self WPC No.34232/2010 2 Government Institutions. 2. I am afraid the petitioners have not correctly understood the finding of the Tribunal in Ext.P3. The Tribunal had found that no appeal would lie from Ext.P1 order passed by the Secretary to the Municipal Council and that the petitioners ought to have filed an appeal to the Tribunal as provided under section 509(6) of the Kerala Municipality Act. The Tribunal has not in Ext.P3 held that an appeal would lie from Ext.P2 to the Tribunal. Therefore, the prayer in this writ petition is misconceived. Even assuming that the permission sought is to file an appeal from Ext.P1 order, the relief prayed for cannot be granted. The petitioners cannot preempt any challenge to the maintainability of the appeal from Ext.P1, if they file one before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions on the ground that it is belated by seeking the permission of this Court to file an appeal. In such circumstances, I find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.34232/2010 3 WPC No.34232/2010 4