IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 14TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 16810 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.K.NAFEESA, W/O.IMBICHAMMOO, P.K.HOUSE, FRANCIS ROAD,KOZHIKODE BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, KOZHIKODE 3. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PWD DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,SC,KOZHIKODE CORP FOR R1 & 2 SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.16810/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 20.5.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 14.6.06 INWPC NO.11602/2006. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 16810 OF 2008 A ==================== Dated this the 5th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2, by which, an application made by the petitioner for a building permit has been declined on the ground that if construction is permitted, that will run counter to a DTP Scheme. Counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to Ext.P3 judgment concerning the adjacent property, where also building permit was declined on identical grounds. In that case, despite objections similar to that raised by the Corporation in its counter affidavit, relief has been granted by this Court. Counsel also invites my attention to an Apex Court judgment in Raju S. Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 11 SCC 222], where also an identical situation has been dealt with. 2. Having regard to the parity of the facts of this case with the cases dealt with by this Court and the Apex Court referred to above, I see no reason to decline relief to the petitioner. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P2 and directing that the application for building permit shall be considered by the 2nd respondent. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any WPC 16810/08 :2 : rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp