IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 33294 of 2007(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SHRI SAMSON J.PANADAN, S/O.P.A.LONAPPAN, PANADAN HOUSE, PARIYARAM,CHALAKUDY. BY ADV. MR.S.RAMESH BABU. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY THE MUNICIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIAPAL OFFICE, CHALAKUDY. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. V. MANU, R2 BY ADV. MR.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.33294/2007-L: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD. 25/11/2005. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DTD. 28/03/2006. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DTD. 12/11/2006. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 01/10/2007. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 01/09/2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 33294 OF 2007 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT The prayer is to quash Exts.P4 and P5. The petitioner was granted building permit on the basis of Ext.P1 Government Order granting exemption from various provisions of the Municipality Rules. It is stated that on the basis of Exts.P1 and P2 building permit, the construction was completed and Ext.P3 Occupancy Certificate was issued. Subsequently, Exts.P4 and P5 were issued cancelling the building permit based on the judgment of this court in O.P.8740 of 1997. It is challenging these orders, the writ petition is filed. Although, it is a fact that the legal position has been clarified by the judgment relied on in Exts.P4 and P5, the fact remains that acting upon the building permit and Ext.P1 exemption, the construction was undertaken and was completed. If that be so, at this distance of time, I see no reason for the impugned proceedings. Accordingly, Exts.P4 and P5 will stand quashed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE lgk