IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2010 / 17TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 35854 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ A.V.MAMMAD, S/O.KAMMUTTY HAJI APPATT VADAKKEKARA, PULLIPARAMBA POST CHELEMBRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR TIRURANGADI TALUK, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHELEMBRA MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. CHELEMBRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY P.O.CHELEMBRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN 673 634. 5. ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O.MOHAMMED NADAKASSERI PUTHUVAKKAL, CHELEMBRA PULLIPARAMBA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN FOR R4 SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ FOR R5 SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 35854 OF 2009 (B) ===================== Dated this the 7th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be an owner of a plot of land having an extent of 3¾ cents situated in Re.Sy.No.98/16 of Tirurangadi Taluk covered by Ext.P1 partition deed. According to the petitioner, in the said property, he proposes to construct a building for the purpose of which he made an application to the 4th respondent Panchayat for a building permit. 2. By Ext.P9 order, only for the reason that a civil suit filed by the 5th respondent as OS No.191/09 before the Munsiff's Court, Parappanangadi is pending, his application is declined to be considered. It is thereupon the writ petition is filed. 3. Although the counsel for the 5th respondent submits that the suit filed by him is still pending, he accepts that there is no interim order either in the suit or in the CMA filed by him before the District Court against the order passed by the Trial Court declining interim order in his favour. Panchayat also has no other reason to substantiate their stand taken in Ext.P9. 4. Thus it is obvious that neither in the suit nor in the WPC 35854/09 :2 : CMA, is there any order restraining the Panchayat from granting building permit or restraining the petitioner from constructing any building in the plot in question. Therefore, the pendency of the suit can be no reason for the Panchayat to refuse consideration of the application made by the petitioner. 5. In view of the above, quashing Ext.P9, the 4th respondent Panchayat is directed to consider the application made by the petitioner for building permit with notice to the petitioner and also the 5th respondent. Orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp