IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2010 / 9TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 25268 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.A.RAJAGOPALAN, ADHIYARATH HOUSE, MATHUR P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.NIJOY SMT.C.PRABITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SECRETARY, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, MATHUR P.O., PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1,2 SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R1,2 SRI.JIBU P THOMAS FOR R1,2 SRI.P.S.APPU FOR R1,2 SRI.A.R.NIMOD FOR R1,2 SRI.C.A.ANOOP FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.25268/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.5661/1985. P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF REJECTION DATED 27/01/2006. P3 : COPY OF THE FORM OF REJECTION DATED 01/06/2009. P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/07/2009 IN APPEAL NO.512/2009 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.25268 of 2009 (C) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 29th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner made an application for a building permit. That was rejected by Ext.P3 order passed by the Municipality on the ground that the area is covered by the Detailed Town Planning scheme. This order was challenged before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in Appeal No.512/2009. That appeal was disposed of by Ext.P4 order setting aside Ext.P3 and directing reconsideration of the matter in the manner as provided therein. Nothing further was done by the Municipality and it is with this grievance, this writ petition is filed. 2. At the stage of admission, this Court passed an interim order directing the Municipality to consider the matter and makeing it clear that the permit if any issued and the construction if any undertaken will be provisional. The petitioner submits that in compliance with the said order, the Municipality has issued a building permit. But however, the petitioner did not undertaken any WP(C) No.25268/2009 -2- construction on account of the uncertainty involved. 3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Municipality informs that at the instance of the Municipality itself, the Government have modified the Town Planning scheme referred to in Ext.P3. If that be the situation, not only for the reason assigned by the Tribunal but also taking into account the modification of the Scheme as undertaken, the Municipality has to reconsider the application made by the petitioner for building permit. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the application made by the petitioner for building permit, in the light of the directions of the Tribunal as contained in Ext.P4 order and also taking into account the modification of the Scheme that has undertaken. Orders as above shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg