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. 12441 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NAZEERA BANU, KOORIMANNIL VALIYAPURAM, KARUVAMBRAM, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANJERI MUNICIPALITY, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 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.12441/09 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED NIL. EXT.P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY RESPONDENT DATED 29.10.2008. EXT.P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).19464/08 DATED 14.7.08. EXT.P4: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).19865/08 DATED 8.8.08. EXT.P5: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).3769/09 DATED 4.2.2009. EXT.P6: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THESECOND RESPONDENT DATED 24.3.2009. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.12441 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner applied for a building permit. That was refused by the first respondent on grounds referable to a DTP scheme. The petitioner moved this Court. He was relegated to alternate statutory remedy. When the petitioner moved the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, it was held that the appeal was beyond time and even beyond the period that could be condoned. Hence, the petitioner challenges the decision rejecting the building permit application on grounds referable to the DTP scheme as also the decision of the Tribunal for LSGI rejecting the appeal on ground of delay. 2.Having lost an earlier round before this Court on the ground that the petitioner has alternate remedies, she stood confined to seek relief before the Tribunal for LSGI. The appeal was found to be beyond time and even beyond the period that could WPC.12441/09 Page numbers be condoned in terms of the rules. The rules and provisions governing the period of limitation are not under attack in this writ petition. Obviously therefore, the Tribunal cannot be found fault with for having acted in terms of an existing statute law, including existing rules. So long as the statutory provisions governing alternate remedy, including statutory rules exists, the challenge of the petitioner to the order of the Tribunal fails. That having failed, the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the order rejecting the application for building permit since that will be by-passing the statutory remedy which, not only been invoked but has been lost. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. 3.However, as of now, in the judgment issued today in W.P(C). 17413/09, this Court has held that the DTP scheme is inoperative and oppressive. Hence, any application of the petitioner for building permit, made de novo, will have to be WPC.12441/09 Page numbers considered under the changed circumstances. It is directed that if the petitioner files an application for building permit under the changed circumstances, the municipal authorities will consider such application in accordance with law as it now stands. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.29/9.