IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 17413 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- O.V.USMAN KURIKKAL, S/O.CHERIYAKUNHUMMUTY KURIKKAL,AGED 38 YEARS, KURIKKAL HOUSE,MANJERI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE MANJERI MUNICIPALITY, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.17413/09 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER REFUSING TO GRANT BUILDING PERMIT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 25.9.08 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AS NO.B.A.NO. 960/2005-06. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.6.09 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C).14727/09. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.17413 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent municipality. 2.The petitioner applied for building permit for the construction of a commercial building. That was rejected on the ground that the request contradicts the terms of a DTP scheme. The finality of the master plan has necessarily to depend upon the fact, whether it has become operational. The plan which was approved as early as in 1984 has not till been implemented. Accordingly, the issue raised is covered in favour of the petitioner by the judgment of this Court in Padmini v. State of Kerala [1993 (3) KLT 465] and Ext.P3 judgment, directly holding that such town planning scheme would be oppressive and would not be countenanced on the face of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. WPC.17413/09 Page numbers For the aforesaid, it has to be held that the DTP scheme relied on by the respondent is inoperative and oppressive. It is so declared. The impugned Ext.P1 is accordingly quashed and it is directed that the petitioner's application for building permit be taken up, considered and orders issued de novo without reference to the DTP scheme. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.29/9.