IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 29TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 26764 of 2010(U) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- T.K.PAREED PILLAI, S/O. KOCHAHAMED, THENUR HOUSE, PROPRIETOR, MEHERAJ TIMBER INDUSTRIES, VENGOLA.P.O. BY ADVS. SRI.M.M.ABDUL AZIZ, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SRI.JYOTHISH.J.KALLINGAL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- THE SECRETARY, VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYATH VENGOLA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ WP(C).No. 26764 of 2010(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER AND CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD TO THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.10822/2010. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER REJECTING BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO. 10822/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE SVS/ T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ---------------------- W.P.(C) No.26764 OF 2010 --------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of an application for building permit as per Ext.P3 communication, by the respondent panchayat. The reasons stated therein is that a Writ Petition is pending before this Court against the starting of the unit and therefore the application cannot be considered. 2. The petitioner has been conducting a saw mill under the name and style Meheraj Timber Industries in 1 Acre 35 cents of land in Survey No.5/1 of Vengola Village continuously for the last more than 20 years as a small scale industrial unit for the manufacture and sale of packing cases, core vineer etc. with all statutory licenses. By Ext.P1, the Ernakulam District Single Window Clearance Board has issued a deemed licence to establish and conduct a new plywood unit in the aforesaid S.S.I. unit. The petitioner had to file W.P.(C) 10822/2010 before this Court seeking for police protection to establish and conduct the new plywood unit in view of obstruction by certain local people. W.P.(C) No.26764/2010 2 3. The Division Bench, in the said Writ Petition has granted Ext.P2 interim order. In the meanwhile by Ext.P3, the application for building permit, was rejected sighting the pendency of the above Writ Petition before this Court. Petitioner again filed an application as I.A.No.10244/2010 in W.P.(C) 10822/2010 pointing about the reason for passing Ext.P3 order and the Division Bench clarified that the pendency of the Writ Petition cannot be treated as a ground for rejecting the application, as per Ext.P4. 4. The respondent has not filed any counter, so far, opposing the prayers of the petitioner. I am not considering anything on the merits of the claim of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of the clarification issued by the Division Bench as per Ext.P4, Panchayat may be directed to consider the application afresh, after setting aside Ext.P3. 5. Evidently, in Ext.P3 the application is rejected only sighting the pendency of W.P.(C) 10822/2010. Now that the W.P.(C) No.26764/2010 3 Division Bench has clarified in Ext.P4 that the pendency of the said Writ Petition cannot be treated as a ground for rejecting the application, the reason stated in Ext.P3 cannot be supported. Therefore, Ext.P3 is quashed. There will be a direction to the respondent to reconsider the application dated 1.7.2010 submitted by the petitioner for building permit on merits and after considering objections, if any, by others, within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) ps