IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 30952 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KUNJIAYSUMMA, W/O. A.T. SAID MOHAMMED, PALATHUMVEETTIL HOUSE, (WHITEWAY), ORUMANAYUR P.O., VIA, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER A.T.SAID MOHAMMED. BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNAKUMAR MANGOT SRI.S.SREEDEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (R.B.), SECTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. GURUVAYOOR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GURUVAYOOR MUNICIPALITY, GURUVAYOOR. SRI.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).No. 30952/08. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR PERMIT. P2. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.12.5.03 OF R2. P3. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.27.8.03 TO GOVT. P4. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.2.5.07 FROM R2. P5. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.31.3.05. P6. COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DTD.26.6.07. P7. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.8.1.08 OF R2. P8. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.17.10.07. P9. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO.22265/08 OF THIS COURT. P10. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.30.9.08 OF R2. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.30952 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 20th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner approached this Court with a grievance that in spite of Ext.P9 judgment, the Municipality has, by Ext.P10 order, rejected the application filed by the petitioner for a building permit on the ground that the DTP scheme in force would be violated in respect of which the Government has no power to grant individual exemption and only the scheme as a whole can be amended or varied as held by this Court. The petitioner's contention is that, as held in Ext.P9 judgment, the judgment of this Court relied upon by the Municipality applies only prospectively and therefore, on that ground the petitioner's application for building permit cannot be rejected, exemption having been given to the petitioner prior to that judgment. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality submits that Ext.P9 judgment has been set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2201/2008 today. This is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. That being so, the petitioner cannot now claim building permit on the basis of the w.p.c.30952/08 2 individual exemption granted to the petitioner by the Government. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has got a further case that the Government can vary the DTP scheme itself and seeks reservation of the petitioner's right to seek the same. 3. In the above circumstances I do not think that for the present Ext.P10 can be interfered with. It would be open to the petitioner to approach the Government for cancellation or variation of the DTP Scheme itself for which this judgment shall not be a bar and if the petitioner succeeds, it would be open to the petitioner to apply afresh notwithstanding Ext.P10. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.30952/08 3