IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2009 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 10853 of 2009(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- MEETHALAPRATH LAKSHMANAN, S/O.BAPPU,AGED 54 YEARS, MEETHALAPRATH HOUSE,EDACHOVVA, P.O.CHOVVA, KANNUR. BY ADV. MR.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. ELAYAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ELAYAVOOR, P.O.MUNDAYAD, KANNUR DISTRICT,REP.BY THE SECRETARY. 2. ELAYAVOOR VILLAGE PANCHAYATH (ELAYAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH), ELAYAVOOR, P.O.MUNDAYAD, KANNUR DISTRICT,REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT. 3. KONIPORIYAN RAGHAVAN,S/O.KUNHAMBU, AGED 59 YEARS,MISSION COMPOUND, P.O.CHOVVA,KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.C.KRISHNAN(KANNUR) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 10853/2009-B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/02/2001 IN RCA NO.269/1996. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.37 DATED 02/03/2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 15/03/2007. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 21/05/2007 AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 25/05/2007. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 02/06/2007. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 28/07/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rs/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.10853 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner is an unfortunate landlord, who wanted to re- construct a building belonging to him. He obtained an order of eviction under Act 2 of 1965. However, when he applied for building permit, respondents 1 and 2 refused to issue such permit on the premise that unless eviction has been effected, permit cannot be issued without the written consent of the tenant. I state these facts because this is nothing but the peak of administrative absurdity. Such decision having come out at the hands of a special grade secretary is intriguing. The issuance of permit to re-construct a building is not made dependent on the consent of the occupier either under the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act or under the Panchayat Raj Act or under the Kerala Municipal Building Rules or any other law for the time being in force. No such provision is pointed out on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The stand of respondents 1 and 2 therefore fails. WPC.10853/09 Page numbers 2.A counter affidavit is filed by respondents 1 and 2 that they were under the “bonafide” belief that consent of the tenant is necessary for permit to re-construct a building. The word “bonafide” denotes something coupled with rationality. Perverse and irrational thinking can never be placed under the carpet of bonafides. I am satisfied that the impugned action results in manifest miscarriage of justice. 3.In the result, the writ petition is allowed directing that the building permit applied for by the petitioner shall be issued within a fortnight from now, without insisting for any consent letter of the tenant, if the application is otherwise in order. I am inclined to impose an order of exemplary costs in favour of the petitioner. However, taking into consideration that the third respondent does not appear and the quality of public service in Kerala requires a stock assessment by the higher ups in the administration of the Government, I desist from imposing any order of costs. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.1/6.