IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 3212 of 2011(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ B.FATHIMA LATHEEF,AGED 55 YEARS, W/.ABDUL LATHEEF,VARIKKADAN HOUSE,PALLIKAVALA, MUDICKAL.P.O,PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683 547. BY ADV. SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,MUNICIPAL OFFICE,PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683 542. 2. T.T.RAJAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,S/O.THARU, THOMBRA HOUSE,PULLUVAZHI KARA,RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, KUNNATHUNADU.P.O.,PIN-683 541. R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.3212 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated 29th March, 2011 JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed mainly with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to afford an opportunity of being heard and to produce documents to substantiate her objections to the plan and application submitted by the second respondent for permit to effect construction of the second floor to a building that situates in the property having an extent of 11.759 cents comprised in Re-survey No.8 (old Survey No.304/11) of Perumbavoor Village, which has been numbered as B.A.No.261/2010-2011 by the first respondent. According to the petitioner, herself and certain others have purchased the aforesaid property as per sale deed No.470/1993 of Sub Registry, Perumbavoor. After constructing the ground floor and the first floor the vendees, including the petitioner, decided to sell the right to construct the second floor and, in fact, it was such a right with reservation that was purchased by the second respondent as per Ext.P1. It was in the said circumstances that the petitioner seeks the aforesaid reliefs. The sum and substance of the contention of the petitioner is that before taking a decision on the application for building permit submitted by the second WP(C).No.3212/2011 2 respondent the petitioner should be afforded with an opportunity to raise objections. When this matter is taken up for consideration today, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that on consideration of the application submitted by the 2nd respondent certain defects were noted and they were duly notified to the second respondent. In fact, one of such defects is non-production of the concurrence from the petitioner herein and other co-owners. Evidently, it is for the second respondent to cure the defects and in case the second respondent is aggrieved by the refusal to consider the said application, it is for him to take up the matter. As on today, there is no reason or basis for the apprehension of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the second respondent has not re-submitted the application for building permit after curing the said defects. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that this Court need not consider all the contentions raised in this writ petition at this stage. Therefore, reserving all the rival contentions to be urged in appropriate proceedings, this writ petition is closed. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS