IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2008 / 2ND SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 10800 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. K.N.SIVANKUTTY KARTHIKA ,T.C. 9/2002 KOCHAR ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SETHU SIVANKUTTY KARTHIKA ,T.C. 9/2002 KOCHAR ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SINDHU.K.S KARTHIKA ,T.C. 9/2002 KOCHAR ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SRI.V.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, (ANEX) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NAGARASABHA KARYALAYAM WPC NO.10800/08 -2- 4. THE TOWN PLANNER BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NAGARASABHA KARYALAYAM 5. CHIEF TOWN PLANNING OFFICER CHIEF TOWN PLANNING OFFICE NEAR AKG CENTRE, KUNNUKUZHI P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) FOR R3 SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR FOR R3 SMT.SUSHYA RAJAN FOR R3 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 10800 OF 2008 I ==================== Dated this the 24th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is an order of exemption granted in favour of the petitioners. Subsequently, the petitioners submitted Ext.P4 application for building permit for additional construction that they intended to make. Orders were not passed on Ext.P4 and that led the petitioners to file this writ petition. 2. During the pendency of this writ petition, by Annexure 1 order dated 23/6/2008, produced along with the statement filed by the respondent, the Corporation rejected Ext.P4, for the reason that Ext.P1 order of exemption does not cover the construction in respect of which permit was sought for by Ext.P4. On that basis, the petitioner was informed by Annexure I that on production of order of Zonal Exemption, their request will be considered. 3. Petitioners points out that this contention of the Corporation is unsustainable in the light of the law laid down by this court in Ext.P14 judgment in WP(C) No.22658/07. Specific reference is made to para 11 of the judgment where the contention that the concept of zonal exemption WPC 10800/08 :2 : means exemption from the zone and therefore insistence of a further zonal exemption was not justified. Going through Ext.P14, prima facie I am satisfied that the view taken by the respondents in Annexure I order is contradictory to the principle laid down in that judgment. 4. Therefore the matter needs to be reconsidered by the Corporation in the light of Ext.P14 judgment. In order to enable the Corporation to do so, I quash Annexure I order dated 23/6/2008 and direct that within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment, Ext.P4 shall be reconsidered in the light of Ext.P14 and orders shall be passed afresh. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp