IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2011 / 17TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 4930 of 2011(M) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SABU, AGED 43,S/O.JOSEPH, PARVELIKUDY HOUSE,PERUMBAVOOR- 683 542, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN PERUMBAVOOR, SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,HOME AFFAIRS,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 2. PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,PERUMBAVOOR P.O - 683 542. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K. REMESH, R2 BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN, SRI.K.T.THOMAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.4930/2011-M: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2134/2010 DTD. 16/04/2010. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PLAN OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER OF R.2. BEARING NO.B.A.339/2010-11 DTD. 10/02/2011. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).37544/07 DTD. 03/03/08 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).3624/08 DTD. 03/03/08 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER TO MR. SUBAIR BEARING NO.PW3-RIA-1285/2011 DTD. 11/02/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.4930 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner in possession of 60 sq.m of property comprised in Re.Sy.No.2/3 of Block No.18 of Perumbavoor Municipality. He has submitted an application for building permit along with Ext.P2 plan before the second respondent. The same was rejected by the second respondent as per Ext.P3 citing the reason that 7.35 metres is not left out as open space. The said reason was assigned for rejecting the application of the petitioner for building permit based on a master plan prepared by the second respondent as early as in the year 1994. In the master plan, there is a proposal for construction of a road with a width of 21 metres. It is challenging Ext.P3 that this Writ Petition has been filed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent and also the learned Government Pleader. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of Ext.P6 which would reveal the absence of a sanctioned master plan W.P.(C) NO.4930/2011 2 for the second respondent Municipality, the reason assigned in Ext.P3 for rejecting the request of the petitioner for building permit is unsustainable. To support the said contention, the learned counsel relied on Exts.P4 and P5 judgments of this Court. As per Exts.P4 and P5, taking note of the fact that there is no approved and notified town planning scheme for the second respondent Municipality, this Court interfered with the impugned orders in the said Writ Petitions and issued a consequential direction to the Municipality to reconsider the application for building permit and pass appropriate orders making it clear that the proposal in the master plan which is yet to get sanction from the Government shall not be a ground for rejection of such an application. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of the said decisions, the second respondent Municipality is under an obligation to consider the application submitted by the petitioner afresh. Ext.P6 dated 11.2.2011 would undoubtedly show that there is no approved master plan for the Perumbavoor Municipality. If that be so, relying on a proposal in an un-approved master plan, the application of the petitioner for building permit should not have been and could not have been rejected, it is contended. In the light of Ext.P4 and P5 judgments, I am inclined to uphold the contention of the petitioner. In W.P.(C) NO.4930/2011 3 view of the circumstances obtained in this case, based on Ext.P6 and in the light of Exts.P4 and P5 judgments, Ext.P3 is set aside. Consequently, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit, referred to in Ext.P3, afresh, in accordance with law, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the proposal in the un-approved master plan shall not be a reason for rejection of the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit. This Writ Petition is disposed of, accordingly. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.4930/2011 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.4930/2011 5