IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2010 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 32326 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- G.AJITH KUMAR, AGED 43, S/O.GANGADARAN NAIR, T.C.30/217, K.G.BHAVAN, ANAYARA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 029. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., LOCAL SELF GOVT.DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-695 001. 3. THE REGIONAL TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C) NO.32326 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P7, order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, disposing of Appeal No.84/2010 filed by the petitioner. This appeal was filed against an order passed by the 2nd respondent, rejecting an application made by the petitioner for building permit. 2. The contention raised before the Tribunal, as can be seen from Ext.P7 was that, the request ought to have been allowed in view of the judgment of this court in Nazar.P.K v. The Malappuram Municipality 2009 (3) KLT 92. However, the Tribunal has rightly pointed out that the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment has subsequently been clarified by this court in judgment in Secretary to Government v. Nazar 2010 (1) KLT 289. 3. This was the only argument raised before the Tribunal which has been rejected in Ext.P7 order. There is W.P(C) NO.32326 OF 2010 2 nothing wrong in Ext.P7 warranting interference. This writ petition is therefore dismissed. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be given liberty to file a fresh application for building permit before the 2nd respondent. It is made clear that it will be open to the petitioner to do so in which case, it will be open to the 2nd respondent to deal with the same in accordance with law. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE dmb