IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33811 of 2010(B) ------------------------ PETITIONER : ------------------ K.M.ABOOBACKER, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT KARAPPAMVEETTIL HOUSE, WEST MANGAD P.O. PAZHANJI (VIA), TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.KRISHNA KUMAR SMT.PRABHA R.MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE KUNNAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KUNNAMKULAM-680 503. 2. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT., LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE, SC R2 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V. MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ---------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.33811 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner of a parcel of land, 10 cents in extent, situated in Re-survey No.46/9 of Kunnamkulam Village in Thrissur District. With a view to put up a commercial building in that land, the petitioner submitted an application for building permit to the Secretary of Kunnamkulam Municipality. Ext.P7 letter dated 30- 01-2009, the Secretary of Kunnamkulam Municipality informed the petitioner that as the land has been set apart for use as open space in the proposed Detailed Town Plan Scheme, the building permit cannot be granted. The petitioner thereupon submitted a fresh application along with Ext.P8 representation on 18-08-2008. That was also rejected by Ext.P9 letter dated 30-09-2010. Ext.P9 is under challenge in this writ petition wherein petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent Kunnamkulam Municipality to reconsider the application for building permit. Relying on Ext.P10 judgment of a learned single judge of this Court, in respect of the lands situate in the neighborhood, the petitioner contends that as the Detailed Town Plan Scheme has not been approved by Government or notified. Exts.P7 and P9 orders cannot be sustained. W.P.(C).NO.33811 OF 2010 2 2. Sri.Gracious Kuriakose, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kunnamkulam Municicpality, fairly conceded that the Detailed Town Plan Scheme referred to Exts.P7 and P9 has not so far been approved by the Government or notified. In that view of the matter, it has to be necessarily held that the rejection of the application for building permit cannot be sustained. In the result, I allow the writ petition, quash Ext.P9 and direct the Secretary of Kunnamkulam Municipality to reconsider the petitioner's application for building permit, in the light of the relevant rules without reference to the Detailed Town Plan Scheme based on which the application was earlier rejected and take a fresh decision in the matter expeditiously and in any event within six weeks from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before him. P.N.RAVINDRAN,JUDGE pm