IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28914 of 2011(L) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER : - --------------------- DR. BABY MATHEW, S/O.N.J.MATHEW, AGED 51, RSIDING AT H.NO.10/96, VIKAS NAGAR, PATTATHANAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP RESPONDENT : - ----------------------- THE CORPORATION OF KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION OF KOLLAM, KOLLAM-690001. BY ADV. SRI. C. UNNIKRISHNAN, S.C THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 28914 of 2011(L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT P1 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 08.07.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. EXT P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.08.2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE DMR/- HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.28914 OF 2011 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P2 order and for a direction commanding the respondent to re-consider Ext.P1 application in terms of the relevant provisions of the Detailed Town Planning Scheme for Kollam. 2. Petitioner is the Urologist by profession. He submitted an application to the respondent seeking permission to carry out the interior modifications in the building and to change the nature of use of the building to that of a clinic (out patient). Ext.P1 is the copy of the application. By Ext.P2 order dated 31/8/2010 Ext.P1 application was rejected on the ground that the area where the building situates is a residential zone under the Town Planing Scheme for the Corporation of Kollam. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P2 order was passed without due regard to the provisions in the Town Planning Scheme -2- W.P.(C).No.28914/2011 itself which permits functioning of small clinics in residential areas. Learned counsel also pointed out that the application was submitted seeking permission for changing the use of the building and that in fact the scheme permits to change the nature of use of the building to that of a clinic as requested. It is also pointed out that without noticing the fact that Ext.P2 order was happened to be passed, the interior modification of the building does not warrant permission from the local authority under the Kerala Muncipal Building Rules. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to re-consider Ext.P1 application and pass appropriate orders thereon afresh, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.