IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 32733 of 2010(N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. P.R.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.LATE SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNA RAO, WOODLANDS JEWELLERY, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. B.SANKAR, S/O.SRI.P.R.BALAKRISHNAN, WOODLANDS JEWELLERY, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, (LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (L.S.G.), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 3. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY- 682 011. 4. SENIOR TOWN PLANNER, ERNAKULAM- 682 011. 5. P.R.JAGADEESH, S/O.P.N.RAMAKRISHNA RAO, WOODLANDS LCE 'N' CREAM, WOODLANDS JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 035. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH, R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 32733 of 2010 N ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 26th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners challenge Ext.P9, an order passed by the first respondent rejecting an application made for regularisation of an unauthorised construction. 2. The application was in relation to a building, a portion of which belongs to the fifth respondent. A reading of Ext.P9 order shows that the main reason for rejecting the application was that it was made in the name of Sri.P.N.Ramakrishna Rao, the father of the first petitioner and the fifth respondent. It is stated that, long prior to the application, Sri. P.N.Ramakrishna Rao had expired on 16-07- 1997 and on that ground, it has been held that the application is a fraudulent one. 3. Although the petitioners do have several justifications for making the application in the name of their deceased father, still fact remains that the father had expired W.P.(C) No.32733/2010 : 2 : prior to the submission of the application. If that be so, the rejection of the application as per Ext.P9 cannot be faulted. 4. Be that as it may, in law, if a person is eligible to make an application for regularisation of an unauthorised construction, now the petitioners are also co-owners of the building, they are also eligible to make a fresh application. 5. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioners or any of them to make a fresh application seeking regularisation of the construction, and directing that, if such an application is made in compliance with the statutory requirements, the same shall be considered on merits, this writ petition is disposed of. It is made clear that this Court have not expressed anything on the merits of the contentions either of the petitioners or that of the fifth respondent. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge