IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 WA.No. 1581 of 2008 ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.13973/2004 Dated 06/06/2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- A.V. JOSE, MANAGING PARTNER, ALUKKAS JEWELLERY, T.C NO. 37/890, PADMA PADAM, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (E) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. M. KRISHNAN NAIR, PRESIDENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITIZENS PROTECTION FORUM, REGISTER NO. 1351/1990, PADMA NAGAR, FORT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. R2 TO R4 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.N.NANDA KUMARA MENON. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ----------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1581 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. The orders passed by the respondents in exercise of their powers under Section 406 (3) of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994 was called in question by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C) No.13973 of 2004. 2. The primary contention of the petitioner before the Court was that the petitioner need not have to take prior permission of the Municipality under the provisions of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994 for the purpose of construction of a structure for installing a generator. The learned Single Judge has kept in view that permission from the Municipality is not required if it is only for the purpose of meter cabin and not for a structure to install a generator and therefore, in our opinion, has rightly rejected the writ petition. However, has granted liberty to the petitioner to file appeal if for any reason the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondents. 3. Having carefully gone through the orders passed by the W.A.No.1581/2008 -2- learned Single Judge, we are of the firm opinion that, the learned Judge has not committed any error, whatsoever, which would call for our interference. Therefore, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS