IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2008 / 18TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20643 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SANJAY SEKHAR, N - 18, RAJ VIHAR, GANDHI NAGAR, PUTHUPPARIYARAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 733. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR SRI.JAIRAM.V.MENON RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, PUTHUPPARIYARAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PUTHUPPARIYARAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 20643 OF 2008 G ==================== Dated this the 9th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T What is sought for by the petitioner is a direction against the 1st respondent requiring him to pass orders on Ext.P8 application made by the petitioner for a building permit. 2. Petitioner contends that by Ext.P2, the Revenue Divisional Officer has accorded sanction for conversion of the land exercising his powers under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. However, his application for building permit was rejected by the Panchayat by Ext.P3 stating that the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions had directed to get Ext.P2 cancelled. According to the petitioner, that order was without notice to him. 3. Be that as it may, in pursuance to Ext.P3, the 1st respondent moved the 2nd respondent for cancellation of the permit and that was replied by Ext.P7 stating that such cancellation is not possible and that if at all the 1st respondent is aggrieved, the course open is to resort to the appellate remedies. Petitioner contends that so far no appeal or other proceedings have been initiated against Ext.P2 and therefore is entitled to WPC 20643/08 :2 : be issued a building permit on the strength of the said order. It is urging this claim that Ext.P8 application has been made. 4. In the light of the facts as stated above, if Ext.P2 still remains valid, there is no reason to decline consideration of Ext.P8. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that on the production of a copy of this judgment, the 1st respondent shall consider the application made by the petitioner for building permit and pass appropriate orders thereon. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp