IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 W.P(C).No. 20782 of 2008(Y) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- MAESH CHANDRAN, S/O. CHANDRAN, THAZHISSERY HOUSE, THANDILAM DESOM, VELLATTZNJOOR.P.O, THRISSUR DT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION. 2. DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, TOWN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DISTRICT PLANNING UNIT, THRISSUR. 3. JOINT SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (RB) DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 4. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (RB) DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI. K.B. MOHANDAS, SC FOR CORPN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 20782 OF 2008 Y = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of July 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4. 2. Ext.P4 is a stop memo issued by the respondent Corporation to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, in pursuance to Exts. P1 to P3, the construction of a building is almost complete and it was at that stage Ext. P4 stop memo was issued alleging that the approval of the District Town Planner has not been obtained. Petitioner submits that a revised plan was already submitted and that the same is pending approval of the 2nd respondent and therefore it was on account of the delay on the part of the 2nd respondent that the revised plan could not be approved. It is also submitted that in view of Ext. P4 order, the entire construction has come to a stand still and that there is absolutely no justification for the same. 3. Though this case has come up for admission on10.7.2008 it was adjourned to 14.7.2008 in order to enable the Standing Counsel W.P.(C) No. 20782 OF 2008 -2- of the Corporation to obtain instructions in the matter. Though counsel submitted that he has not got instructions as such, in view of the urgency pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner I proceed to dispose of this writ petition itself. 4. If as stated by the petitioner, a revised plan is already submitted to the 2nd respondent and is awaiting his orders, it is essential for the 2nd respondent to pass orders thereon considering the revised plan. This, the 2nd respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within 2 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 5. In the meanwhile, Ext. P4 will stand stayed and the petitioner will be permitted to go ahead with the construction, but however, the same shall be entirely at his risk and will depend upon the decision to be taken by the 2nd respondent. 6. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before respondents 1 and 2 for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-