IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 32367 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. JIGI JAMES, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. JAMES, KALARKANIYIL HOUSE, AREEKARA, UZHAVOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. RINI HARIKRISHNAN, AGED 31 YEARS, W/O. HARIKRISHNAN,KANNAT HOUSE, MANJALLOOR, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. JANCY ABRAHAM, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O. ABRAHAM, THOTTAPPILLIL, AREEKARA, UZHAVOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.PETER SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR SRIBEPIN PAUL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THODUPUZHA. 2. THE SECRETARY, THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, THODUPUZHA 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.K.SOYUZ,THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALIT FOR R1-2 SPL. GP SRI. C.M.SURESH BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 32367 of 2009 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.BA/774/07 DATED 22.12.08 ISSUED TO THE PEITITIONERS EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.BA/774/07-08 DATED 5.11.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.5.09 IN WP(C) NO.28182/08 (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).32367/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. Ext.P2 is an application for building permit submitted by the petitioner which was rejected by the Municipality by Ext.P3 order on the ground that it is proposed to frame a Detailed Town Planning Scheme and therefore, the building permit cannot be granted. Petitioner relies on Ext.P4 judgment, rendered by this Court in W.P.(C).28182/2008, dealing with a case, concerning the 1st respondent Municipality itself. 2. I heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality. 3. From the submissions made, it is obvious that at present there is no Scheme. Even according to the learned Government Pleader, Government has not granted sanction for any such Scheme. In the absence of any such Scheme, petitioner is entitled to make use of his land in the manner he deems fit and if that be so, rejection of the Ext.P2 application, cannot be sustained. W.P.(C).32367/09 2 4. Therefore Ext.P3 order rejecting Ext.P2 application is set aside. Municipality is directed to pass orders on Ext.P2 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs