IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2009 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 612 of 2009 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.6826/2009 Dated 03/03/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION: --------------------------------------------------------------------- DR. S.SANTHAKUMAR, 17/1784, VATHYAT, PAVAMANI ROAD, KOZHIKODE-4. BY ADV. SRI.M.AJAY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, (REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY), CORPORATION OFFICE, BEACH ROAD, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE, BEACH ROAD, KOZHIKODE. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & Kurian Joseph, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No. 612 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 30th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 3rd March, 2009 rejecting the writ petition solely on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, the present appeal is filed. 2. The appellant had challenged the order of the first respondent rejecting his application for building permit on the ground of proposed acquisition of the land along with others. The question whether the Municipality can reject an application regarding permission for construction of a residential building on the ground that the land is proposed to be acquired is well established by this Court in the case of Padmini v. State of Kerala reported in 1999 (3) KLT 465. 3. By a reading of the statement filed by the respondents, it appears that it is only a proposal at still born stage. Only a sketch for the proposed parking ground has been prepared and no further W.A. No.612 of 2009 - 2 - action is taken. Even as admitted by the Corporation itself, it is due to the weak financial condition of the Corporation, the acquisition proceedings are yet to commence. As such only because the Corporation is of the view that the land requires to be acquired in future, in our view, in the light of the aforesaid judgment, cannot reject the building permit sought for by the appellant. In the result, we find that there is merit in the case of the appellant. The writ appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside and the Corporation is directed to issue the building permit, if it is otherwise in order, within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice Kurian Joseph, Judge vns/dk