IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2008 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 22161 of 2007(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MRS.ASMA JABBAR, MANAGING TRUSTEE, RAMLAT MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST KAZHAKOOTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, SPECIAL GRADE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KAZHAKOOTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR FOR R2 SRI.G.BIJU FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.22161/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT:P1: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.A4-BL-150/02 DATED 16.09.2002. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEARING NO.11020/RA1/06/LSGD DATED 02.07.2007. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.22161 OF 2007 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2007 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the widow of Dr.M.A.Abdul Jabar and is the present Managing Trustee of Ramlat Memorial Charitable Trust, which is, running a hospital called A.J.Hospital, Kazhakoottom in Trivandrum District. The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2, an order passed by the 1st respondent informing that the Chief Town Planner has declined her request for regularising the construction made by her. According to the petitioner, the reasons stated in Ext.P2 are incorrect and the request for regularising the construction which is mentioned in Ext.P1 notice issued by the Panchayat, is not liable to be rejected. A reading of Ext.P2 shows that the revised plan which was submitted by the petitioner to the Chief Town Planner was found to be violating some of the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules 1999. Petitioner submits that Ext.P2 has been issued wholly based on the recommendation of the Chief Town Planner and that in view of the illness of her husband, who was in charge of the hospital at that time, she W.P.(C) No.22161/2007 2 could not prosecute her case before the Chief Town Planner properly. According to her, it was on account her inability to explain the matter properly to the Chief Town Planner that an adverse report happened to be made to the 1st respondent resulting in Ext.P2. 2. Although several contentions have been raised on the merits of the claim for regularisation, petitioner requests that she be given a reasonable time to make modifications and submit a fresh application to the Chief Town Planner, so that, the matter could be given a fresh look. 3. On facts, it is seen that the petitioner happened to come to management only on the death of her husband. It is also submitted that at the time when the matter was engaging the attention of the Chief Town Planner, her husband was ailing. 4. In view of the above factual situation, I am satisfied that the petitioner did not get a reasonable opportunity to satisfy the authority about the genuineness of the request for W.P.(C) No.22161/2007 3 regularisation that have made. I am satisfied that the petitioner deserves to be given yet another opportunity to make a fresh proposal to the 3rd respondent and that the 3rd respondent should consider the matter afresh, recalling Ext.P2 and the recommendation that lead to the same. 5. In order to enable the 3rd respondent to have the matter reconsidered, I quash Ext.P2. It is directed that the petitioner shall submit a fresh proposal to the 3rd respondent, within two months from today, in which case, the 3rd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon. It is also directed that until final orders are passed on the proposal to be submitted by the petitioner, the status quo as on today, in whatever the building, shall be maintained by the parties in so far as the construction already made is concerned. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) ps