IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 30ST SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 629 of 2009(T) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.11715/2006 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN THE WPC -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE TOWN PLANNER, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.L.G.SURESHBABU RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 IN THE WPC ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. S.AHSOK KUMAR, S/O.SIVARAMAN, SUDHALAYAM, SNEHA NAGAR, HOUSE NO.32, ULIYAKOVIL, KOLLAM. 2. THE KOLLAM CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY. 3. TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, KOLLAM CORPORATION. SRI.ANIL THOMAS SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN, SC,KOLLAM CORPORATION SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHANDAS THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ---------------------------------------- R.P.No. 629 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No. 11715 of 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2009 ORDER Respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition are the review petitioners. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 20.1.2009. Exts.P3 and P6 orders are challenged by writ petitioner and were quashed by this Court on the basis of ExtP10 report forwarded by the Chief Town Planner Thiruvanathapuram to the Government which points out that the construction is as per the building permit issued by the Kollam Corporation and there is no change from the approved plan. The Chief Town Planner also reported that it is unfair to take demolition action at this stage and the Corporation may regularize the structure since the building construction has been carried out as per the approved plan. The learned Government Pleader at the time of hearing, quoted the Division Bench decision of this Court in O.P.8740/1997 and contended that the Government has no power under the Town Planning Act to grant individual exemption from the sanctioned town planning scheme. He also contended that both in Exts. P9 and P10 it is specifically stated that the writ petitioner provided only 4.5 metres court yard instead of 9.5 metres , that there is a projection of 1.5 metres shade within the space and that this is clear violation of town planning scheme and against the proposal for -2- road widening of N.H.208 . The other point argued by the learned Government Pleader is that the statutory remedy available to the writ petitioner against the issuance of a notice under Section 406 of the Kerala Municipalities Act is to file an appeal under Section 509(6) of the Kerala Municipalities Act and therefore the said writ petition ought to have dismissed as not maintainable. I have examined the contentions raised by the learned Government Pleader. I have also perused the counter affidavit filed by the Government Pleader in the said writ petition. No contention was taken in the counter affidavit stating that the writ petition is not maintainable for the reason that the said alternate remedy is available to the writ petitioner. The other contentions raised by the Government Pleader were also considered by this Court in the said writ petition itself and a decision was taken on merits The issues raised by the learned Government Pleader in the review petition are not matters touching the merits of the case. The learned Government pleader also requested this court to re-hear the entire issues in the writ petition . Since the case was considered on merits a second examination of all the materials on record is quite unwarranted. The learned Government Pleader has not made out any grounds to review the said judgment. This review petition fails and accordingly dismissed. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) es. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------- R.P. No.629 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No.11715 of 2006 ---------------------------- ORDER 19th August, 2009