IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 20323 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- A.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR 16, AMBADY, N.P.P.NAGAR, PEROORKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKDS DEPARTMENT, (CONVENOR, ROAD WIDENING HIGH LEVEL COMMITTEE) GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY CORPORATION OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, JAYA MANSION VAZHUTHACAUD, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 010 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL, SC., TRIDA FOR R3 SRI.N.NANDAKUMARAMENON, SR.SC FOR CORPORATION GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 20323 OF 2008 T ==================== Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P14. Ext.P14 is an order passed by the 3rd respondent rejecting an NOC applied for by the petitioner. The reason seems to be that if NOC is granted, that will be diluting the provisions of the sanctioned master plan. 2. The petitioner has produced as Ext.P17, an order issued by the Local Self Government Department of the Government of Kerala on 29/11/1999, in terms of which, an NOC is to be issued by the Local Authority, which in this case is the 2nd respondent. In terms of the said order, NOC of the 3rd respondent is unnecessary. 3. Standing counsel for the respondent 2 and senior counsel for respondent 3 also confirm that Ext.P17 order is still in force. If that be so, there was no necessity for the petitioner to have obtained NOC from the 3rd respondent and it is entirely for the 2nd respondent to consider the matter and decide on the application made by the petitioner. True the counsel for the 3rd respondent complains that if NOC is granted, that will be in violation of the master plan. But however, so long as Ext.P17 WPC 20323/08 :2 : governs the field, the petitioner need not go to the 3rd respondent for NOC. In any case, the 2nd respondent will also be equally anxious to safeguard such public interests. That apart, I also record the undertaking of the petitioner that as and when for the implementation of the master plan, if any demolition becomes necessary in future, petitioner is willing to do that on being directed by the 2nd respondent. In view of the above the writ petition is disposed of directing that it will be open to the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent for the issue of a permit in the light of the above. Counsel for the petitioner submits that an application is already filed, in which case, final orders shall be passed by the 2nd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp