IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 35642 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ T.M.MOHAMMED KUNJU, SON OF MEETHEEN PILLA, THAZHISSERY HOUSE, NEAR YWCA, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MOHAMMED ASLAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY, PERUMBAVOOR. 2. P.J.MATHEW, SON OF JOSEPH, AGED 54 YEARS, PALAKEEZHIL HOUSE, MANJOOR P.O., KOTHAMALLOOR, VAIKKOM. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR. 4. TOWN PLANNER, OFFICE OF THE TOWN PLANNER, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM. 5. DIRECTOR OF TOURISM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN FOR R1 SRI.NIREESH MATHEW FOR R2 SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 35642 OF 2009 (A) ===================== Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The prayers sought in this writ petition are to quash Ext.P1 building permit and the order approving Ext.P2 plan. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to take immediate and prompt action for demolition of the building constructed by the 2nd respondent pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 in his property in Sy.No.17/8 of Perumbavoor Village. 2. According to the petitioner, permit has been granted and plan has been approved by the 1st respondent in collusion with the 2nd respondent in a fraudulent manner. I am not inclined to entertain this plea coming from the petitioner at this distance of time for the reason that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the approval of the plan and grant of permit, petitioner ought to have approached the authorities or atleast this Court soon thereafter. On the other hand, he waited until a three storied building was constructed by the 2nd respondent for establishing a hotel, which is stated to be of three star classification. In my view, therefore, the challenge at this distance of time has to fail for delay and WPC 35642/09 :2 : latches on the side of the petitioner. 3. Of course the petitioner has a case that the building is proposed to be used as a Hotel with an FL-3 licence. As at present, no FL-3 licence has been granted and if and when the same is granted and if the same is illegal for any reason, it is up to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies before the appropriate authorities. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp