IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35235 of 2010(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. SAGHEENA BEEVI, W/O.MOHAMMED ISMAIL, RAHMATH HOUSE, UNNITHAN LANE, MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O. PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SAFEENA BEEGOM, W/O.MOHAMMED SHAFEEK, RAHMATH HOUSE, UNNITHAN LANE, MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O. PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN SMT.NITA.N.S. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SPECIAL SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION & SOCIAL WELFARE (G) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN- 695 001. 2. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN- 695 001. 3. CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, TOWN PLANNING OFFICE, KOTTARATHIL BUILDINGS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001 4. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R5 BY GOVT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH KUMAR R2 TO R4 BY SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON,SC FOR CORPORATION ADV.SRI. P.K.MANOJ KUMAR SC FOR CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 35235 of 2010 ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 30th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the senior counsel appearing for the fifth respondent. 2. Petitioners challenge Ext.P3, an order passed by the second respondent, rejecting an application made by them for building permit, on the ground that the area in question is covered by the Medical College Development Scheme. It is now brought to my notice that, by judgment in W.P.(C) No.29325/2009 and connected cases dated 27-07- 2010, similar issues were considered by this Court. In that judgment, since the scheme in question was notified way back in 1976 and land is to be acquired for its implementation, following the principles laid down in the order in R.P.No.1073/2009, the impugned orders were quashed. 3. Since the facts in this case are similar to those dealt with in the aforesaid batch of cases, I feel that the W.P.(C) No.35235/10 : 2 : application made by the petitioner is liable to be reconsidered. 4. Therefore, I quash Ext.P3 and direct that the second respondent shall reconsider the application made by the petitioner, in the light of the judgment referred to above and in accordance with law. This shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. 5. Petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment and writ petition before the second respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge