IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6149 of 2011(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- HAMEED, S/O. SOOPY, AGED 45 YEARS, POOVOLLATHIL METHEL, PULIKANDIYIL, CHELAKKAD. P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. ERAMALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, P.O. ORKKATTERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. PIN-673 501. 2. THE SECRETARY, ERAMALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, P.O. ORKKATTERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 501. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.6149 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner along with his brother-in-laws purchased an extent of 14.85 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.76/3 of Eramala Village. Subsequently, they applied for building permit and Ext.P2 building permit was granted by the second respondent. Admittedly, the construction could not be completed within the validity of Ext.P2. However, the contention of the petitioner is that subsequently, he had completed the construction and therefore applied for renewal of the permit and also for issuing completion certificate. The petitioner along with his brother-in-laws submitted Ext.P3 application before the second respondent for the said purpose. But the second respondent refused to accept the same. It is in the said circumstances that this Writ Petition has been filed mainly with the prayer to command the respondents to renew Ext.P2 permit and to issue completion certificate. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Adv.Sri.Asok M.Cherian appearing for the respondents. It is evident from the contentions raised by the petitioner that within the validity period of W.P.(C) NO.6149/2011 2 Ext.P2, the construction in question was not completed and that the construction was completed only thereafter. Whether in such circumstances, the application for building permit could be renewed and whether the petitioner could be issued with completion certificate are matters to be considered by the respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that Ext.P3 alleged to have been submitted before the respondents was not actually received by the respondents. In case the petitioner submits an application carrying the aforesaid requests viz., for renewal of permit and for completion certificate, the said application would be considered by the respondents in accordance with law, it is submitted. This is recorded. In view of the said submission, this Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to submit proper application for the aforesaid purpose within ten days from today. In case the petitioner submits a proper application for the aforesaid purpose, the same shall be considered by the respondents expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the said application, in accordance with law (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.6149/2011 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.6149/2011 4