IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 7TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 27925 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- A.JASMINE, D/O.RAMLA BEEVI, ANZARI MANZIL, PERINGAMMALA.P.O., NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN SMT.NITA.N.S. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. SPECIAL SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION & SOCIAL WELFARE (G) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, TOWN PLANNING OFFICE KOTTARATHIL BUILDINGS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR, SC FOR CORPN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 27925 OF 2010 (M) ===================== Dated this the 29th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the senior counsel for the 2nd respondent. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that in respect of her 4 cents of land in Sy.No.920C/1 situated in Cheruvaykkal Village, petitioner made application for a building permit. It is stated that when the application was made through website of the 2nd respondent, the reply received is Ext.P2. It is in these circumstances complaining that permit has been declined, the writ petition has been filed. 3. This Court by order dated 9/9/2010 directed the petitioner to produce order, if any, passed by the Corporation rejecting her application. In answer, counsel for the petitioner has today submitted that what the petitioner received is Ext.P2 and not a speaking order rejecting the application. Ext.P2 is in fact a site inspection report. 4. If as stated by the petitioner, what has been served on the petitioner is only Ext.P2, such proceedings cannot be treated WPC No. 27925/10 :2 : as an order dealing with the application made by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition directing that if orders have not been passed or communicated to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent shall pass orders on the application, if any, received from the petitioner for building permit. A speaking order in that regard will be passed within one month of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp