IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 34624 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- T.C.MUHAMMED SADIQUE, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.KATHIRI HAJI, NASEER MAHAL, ERANJIPPALAM P.O., KOZHIKKODE-6. BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE. 3. SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH, SC FOR CORPN. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA SRI.K.D.BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2010, HE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 34624 OF 2009 (W) ===================== Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The prayer sought in the writ petition is to quash Ext.P2 order passed by the Corporation of Calicut rejecting the petitioner's application for a building permit. The reason stated is that the area is covered by a DTP Scheme prepared under the provisions of the Town Planning Act. In view of the order passed in RP NO. 1073/09 dated 21st of December, 2009 reviewing the judgment in Nasar v. Malappuram Municipality (2009(3) KLT 92), no fault can be found with Ext.P2. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that in the absence of an order passed by the Corporation under Section 17 of the Town Planning Act, it has to be deemed that the scheme has not come into force. 2. I am not persuaded to accept this contention. Even if it is accepted that there is no such order, aggrieved party can at best seek an order against the Corporation to carry out its obligations under Section 17 and the absence of an order under Section 17 does not mean that the scheme is not in force. Writ petition is only to be rejected and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp