IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 111 of 2010(L) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------------- V.P.SADIQ, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.V.P.ALI, "SAINA MANZIL", VALIYAKOOTY PARAMBIL, PALAKULAM, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.O.XAVIER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. MANJERI MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.111/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.3464/96 IN SY.NO.13/5 IN MANJERI VILLAGE ON 12.8.96. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.6888369 DT 2.8.08 IN MANJERI VILLAGE. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT 5.11.2008. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.E3/665/08-09/DT/13/7/09 BY THE MANJERI MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ON 28.5.2007 AND VALID UPTO 6.4.2011. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 111 OF 2010 (L) ===================== Dated this the 19th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner's challenge is against Ext.P4, an order rejecting the application made by the petitioner for a building permit. Ext.P4 shows that the application made by the petitioner was in respect of his land in Re.Sy.No.13/5 of Manjeri Village. The reason stated is that the land is earmarked for acquisition for the purpose of implementation of DTP Scheme. However, referring to Ext.P5, counsel for the petitioner submits that a building permit has been granted to one Sri.M.Ajitha on 28/5/2007 for construction of a commercial building in her land in Re.Sy.No.13/5. It is stated that the said building permit is valid till 6/4/2011. Counsel contends that if the neighbouring owner could be granted permit and allowed to construct a building, there is no reason why the same yardstick should not be applied in his case as well. 2. Though notice has been served on the respondent Municipality, there is no appearance on its behalf. 3. Going by the aforesaid documents, namely Exts.P4 and P5, I am satisfied that the application of the petitioner and Ext.P5 WPC 111/10 :2 : permit are in relation to properties in the same survey number. If that be so, there is no reason why the petitioner should have been treated in a discriminatory manner. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P4 and directing the Municipality to pass fresh orders on the application made by the petitioner for building permit in the light of the observations herein above and in the light of Ext.P5, the permit issued to Sri.M.Ajitha. This shall be done within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp