IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25287 of 2010(I) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. T.K.WILSON,S/O.ANTHONY,THAIKKATTIL HOUSE KOORKANCHERRY,THRISSUR. 2. M.K.ABOOBAKER,S/O.KUNJIMOHAMMED, MATHILKATHVEETTIL HOUSE,PERINJANAM,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SREENIVASAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- SECRETARY,THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THRISSUR-680001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATION R1 BY ADV. SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO. 25287/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIOENRS TO THE RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF REJECTION OF APPLICATION. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.367/05 DTD. 6.12.2005 OF DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT. P4:- COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW BUILDING TO ONE T.A.SALIM, THALASSERY HOUSE, CHAMAKKALA, THRISSUR ISSUED BY RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE PLOT OWNED BY T.A.SALIM, THALASSERY HOUSE, CHAMAKKALA, THRISSUR. P6:- COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE PLOT OWNED BY PETITIONER. P7:- COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PLOTS OWNED BY PETITIONER AND T.A.SALIM, THALASSERY HOUSE, CHAMAKKALA, THRISSUR. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.25287 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P2, which is issued by the respondents stating that, Ext.P1 application made by the petitioner for obtaining building permit for the construction of a building in his property, has been rejected for the reason that a road conceived in the master plan is to pass through the property of the petitioner. 2. The contention raised in the writ petition is that, Ext.P2 master plan has already been cancelled by Ext.P3 order of the Government. However, in the counter affidavit filed, stand taken by the respondent is that, if permit sought for the petitioner is granted, that will affect the development of Thrissur-Kodungallur road envisaged in the master plan. 3. Answering the averments in the counter affidavit, the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. In the reply affidavit, he had produced Ext.P4 building permit and stated that to the owner of the immediate adjacent property of the petitioner, Ext.P4 building 2 W.P.(C).No.25287 of 2010 permit has been granted by the 1st respondent on 25.5.2008. He has also produced Ext.P7 photographs, which show the plot mentioned in Ext.P4 building permit, and the petitioner's property are separated by a common boundary wall. 4. There is no material to dispute these averments of the petitioner. Therefore if permit can be granted to the immediate neighbouring property adjacent to the plot of the petitioner, which is encircled by buildings on all the three sides, I see no reason why the petitioner alone should be declined building permit for the reason mentioned in Ext.P2. 5. Therefore, I set aside Ext.P2 and direct that the 1st respondent will pass fresh orders duly adverting to Ext.P4 building permit and in the light of the observations made in the judgment. Orders shall be passed on the production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge. ami/