IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 21045 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.P.BASHEER, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, NEW CITY RESTAURANT, CITY JUNCTION, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. TIRUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, TIRUR. 3. SECRETARY, TIRUR MINICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, TIRUR. 4. DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, MALAPPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K. RAMESH FOR R4 SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED,SC,TIRUR MUNICIPAL FOR R2-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21045 of 2010(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF TIRUR MUNICIPALITY DT.8.1.1997 EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DT.23.2.1999 EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC NO.17586/2008 DT. 13.11.1999 EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 6642/2010 DT.2.3.2010 EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT.26.4.2010 RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE jma C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 21045 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who is having properties comprised in Resurvey No.211/20-21 filed an application for building permit to construct a three storied commercial building. The said application was rejected as per Ext.P5 citing two reasons as hereunder:- i. As the plan submitted is in violation of Rules 34(2)(3), 54 (b), 42, 109(A) ii. As the proposed renewal site of the petitioner falls within the area originally earmarked for the branch road. It is challenging Ext.P5 that this writ petition has been filed. 2. I have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would rectify all the defects noted in Ext.P5 so as to avoid violation of the specific provisions under the Kerala Municipal Building Rules specified thereunder. With respect to the other objection assigned for rejection in Ext.P5 it is submitted that in the WPC.No.21045/2010 : 2 : light of Exts.P1 and P2 it cannot survive any more. Ext.P1 is resolution No.17 dated 8.1.1997 of Tirur Municipality. As per the same, it was resolved to seek for sanction of the Government for variation of the sanctioned DTP scheme. A perusal of Ext.P1 would reveal that as per the same it was decided to seek for sanction of the Government to drop the proposal with respect to the construction of CB-1 road. Ext.P2 would reveal that based on Ext.P1 resolution Government considered the same and taking note of the recommendation of the Chief Town Planner it was decided to accord prior sanction for variation of the DTP Scheme No.1 ordered as per G.O (P) No.179/92/LAD dated 2.7.1992. It is thus obvious that the second respondent had resolved to request the Government for permission drop the proposal of construction of CB-1 road and that request was later, accepted by the Government and appropriate sanction was granted as per Ext.P2. In view of the said position, I am of the view that the decision in Ext.P5 requires reconsideration in case, the petitioner resubmits the application after curing the defects regarding violation of the specific provisions under the Kerala WPC.No.21045/2010 : 3 : Municipality Building Rules made mention in Ext.P5. To enable the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit for construction in the property in question Ext.P5 is set aside. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the application submitted by the petitioner, in case, the petitioner resubmits the same after curing defects made mention at item No.1 in Ext.P5. It is made clear that while considering the said application the respondents shall look into Exts.P1 and P2. Such a decision shall be taken expeditiously, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge