IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 30790 of 2010(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- INDIRA BALACHANDRAN, T.C.HOUSE, KURUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR – 680 001. BY ADV. SRI.V.JOHN MANI. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- KOLAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYTH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, MULAKUNNATHUKAVU P.O., THRISSUR – 680 581. BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH, SMT.M.SINDHU THANKAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/11/2010, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 30791 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.30790/2010-W: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A1-6394/10 DTD. 12/08/2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 07/09/2010 IN W.P.(C).NO.22338/2010. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 26/05/2010 IN W.P.(C).NO.15214/2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.30790 & 30791 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 12th November, 2010 J U D G M E N T In so far as WP(C) No. No.30790/2010 is concerned petitioner made an application for a building permit. By Ext.P1, the Panchayat informed that Lay out Approval of the Town Planner is necessary for considering the application. Relying on Exts.P2 and P3 judgments, petitioner submits that the said stand taken in Ext.P1 is erroneous. 2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat also. 3. Obviously the application made by the petitioner is pending. Therefore, what is required is that the Panchayat should pass orders on the application duly adverting to Exts.P2 and P3 judgments. This the Panchayat shall do within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. In W.P (C) 30791/2010, the petitioners seeks a direction to the Panchayat to pass orders on the application made by them for a building permit. Along W.P (C) No.30790 & 30791 of 2010 2 with the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it has produced Ext. R1 (a), the request made by the petitioners for returning their applications. It is stated that on the basis of Ext. R1 (a), applications have now been returned. Therefore, there cannot be a direction to the Panchayat to pass orders on an application which was got returned by the petitioners. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioners to make fresh applications if they so desire, in which event, the same will be dealt with in accordance with law. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge