IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 12073 of 2009(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. C.P.JOSE,S/O.C.J.PALU, AGED 55 YEARS, CHIRIYANKANDATH,PIPELINE ROAD,MYLIPADAM, THRISSUR-680 005. 2. LATHA JOSE, W/O.C.P.JOSE,CHIRIYANKANDATH, PIPELINE ROAD,MYLIPADAM,THRISSUR-680 005. BY ADV. MR.S.RAMESH BABU. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THRISSUR CORPORATION,REP; BY ITS SECRETARY,CORPORATION OFFICE,THRISSUR. 3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER,CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, R2 & R3 BY MR.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2009,ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 12101 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.12073/2009-D: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE G.O. (MS).232/85 DTD. 31/10/1985. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DTD. 12/09/2005. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 19/05/2008. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE G.O. (MS).NO.123/08/LSGD DTD. 28/04/2008. EXT.P.5: PHOTOGRAPHS. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 30/07/2008. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 10/11/2008. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 21/01/2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.12073 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.The petitioners have a building permit for a residential building. They have applied for conversion of the user of the building and also for revision of the permit to enable them to put up a non-residential building. That conversion is sought for in relation to a completed building. The only ground on which the request is now refused is on account of the provision of a Town Planing Scheme. However, that scheme has not been operational and with the passage of time, it has essentially turned obsolete. Following the decision of this Court in Padmini v. State of Kerala [1993(3) KLT 465] and in W.P(C).10657/08, Ext.P6 is to be set aside. 2.In the result, Ext.P6 is quashed and it is directed that the application of the petitioners will be considered and appropriate orders issued without reference to any provision of the town planning scheme. Let the needful be done within a WPC.12073/09 Page numbers period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.25/6.