IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 353 of 2009() -------------------- {IN WPC.NO.3769/2009 OF THIS COURT} .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------- NAZEERA BANU, KOORIMANNIL VALIYAPURAM KARUVAMBRAM, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------- THE MANJERI MUNICIPALITY, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY, Ag.C.J. & V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.A.No.353 of 2009 ------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT V.Giri, J. The appellant/petitioner, having purchased an extent of 4.65 Ares of property, filed an application before the respondent for permission under the Kerala Municipal Building Rules, to construct a residential building. By Ext.P4 order dated 29.10.2008, the respondent rejected the application stating that the construction, if permitted. will affect the construction of the road and the zonal regulations relating to DTP Scheme. This order was challenged in the writ petition. 2. It was, inter alia, contended that similar orders, by which applications were rejected, were set aside by another learned single Judge as per Exts.P5 and P6 judgments, wherein a direction was issued to consider the applications for permit, uninfluenced by the earmarking for implementation of the DTP scheme. 3. The learned Judge, in this case, declined to consider the contentions on merits finding that Ext.P4 order passed by the Municipality is appealable before the W.A.No.353 of 2009 :: 2 :: Tribunal for Local Self-Government Institutions. The petitioner was, therefore, relegated to the appellate remedy. This has been challenged in this writ appeal. 4. We heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. The judgment passed by the learned single Judge impugned in this case does not suffer from any error. It cannot be disputed that the order, Ext.P4, is appealable under the Municipalities Act. It also cannot be disputed that there is a competent body, the Tribunal for Local Self-Government Institutions, which is competent to entertain an appeal and pass such orders as could be passed by the original authority itself. The directions issued in Exts.P5 and P6 orders, no doubt, will have a persuasive value before the Tribunal. But, unless we are in a position to find that the view taken by the learned Judge, regarding the existence of an alternate remedy by way of appeal is wrong, we would not consider it appropriate to interfere with the view taken by the learned single Judge. W.A.No.353 of 2009 :: 3 :: In these circumstances, finding that the appeal is bereft of merit, the same is dismissed, obviously, without prejudice to the right of the appellant to approach the appellate authority, in relation to Ext.P4 order. Sd/- (J.B. KOSHY) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge