IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 1396 of 2011(Y) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- C.Y.MEERAN, AGED 50 YEARS, CHENTHARA HOUSE, KANDANTHARA, VENGOLA VILLAGE, VENGOLA KARA, ALLAPRA.P.O., PERUMBAVOOR-683 553, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR – 683 553. 2. SENIOR TOWN PLANNER, ERNAKULAM, COCHI-682 020. 3. CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN, SRI.K.T.THOMAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2011, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 707 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.1396/2011-Y: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE TITLE DEED OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DTD. 26/03/10. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 07/04/2010. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE MINUTES DTD. 16/02/2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No.1396 & 707 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The issue involved in these writ petitions are intrinsically connected, and therefore, these writ petitions were heard jointly and are being of disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner in the former writ petition is running an industry. According to me, he is conducting the same as from 1996. He submitted Exhibit P3 application dated 07.4.10 for building permit. The same was forward by the first respondent before the second respondent for approval. It is the inaction on the part of the respondents on Exhibit P3 application that constrained the petitioner to file the above writ petition. Essentially, the prayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to approve and grant building permit to the petitioner in pursuant of Exhibit P3 application dated 7.4.2010. 3. The petitioner in the latter writ petition seeks issuance of writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to implement the orders of the Hon'ble Local Self Government Institutions and Exhibit P4 order of the second respondent in letter and spirit W.P.(C) No.1396 & 707 of 2011 -2- forthwith. Virtually he is seeking direction to demolish the unauthorised constructions effected by the first respondent viz., the petitioner in the former writ petition. When the above matters are taken up for consideration today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the former writ petition submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to confine his prayer to one for a direction to the respondents to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P3 application dated 07.4.2010. Evidently, Exhibit P3 application dated 07.4.2010 is received by the first respondent and it is still pending consideration before him. The first respondent is admittedly the competent authority to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P1. when that be the position, the first respondent cannot refuse to consider and pass orders thereon. As already noticed herein before, the contention of the petitioner in the latter writ petition is that the first respondent therein i.e. the petitioner in the former writ petition, is not entitled to effect any construction in the property in question. I am of the view that the merits of the rival contentions need not to be looked into at this stage, by this Court. Admittedly, the application for building permit is pending consideration before the competent authority. In the said W.P.(C) No.1396 & 707 of 2011 -3- circumstances, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions raised in this writ petition, they are disposed of as follows:- 1. The third respondent, the competent authority among the respondents 1 to 3 in the former writ petition, shall consider Exhibit P3 application for building permit dated 07.4.2010, submitted by the petitioner, expeditiously within in six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy this judgment. 2. Before taking a decision thereon, the petitioner therein and the petitioner in W.P(C) No.707 of 2011, shall also be heard in the matter and orders thereon shall be passed after consideration of their respective contentions. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE KRK W.P.(C) No.1396 & 707 of 2011 -4-