IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 18TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24433 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THRIVIKRAMAN NAIR, AGED 60, S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR, RESIDING AT PRAYAG, T.C. 64/660(1), NEMOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, OFFICE OF CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, A.S.I.V.CORPORATION BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GP I V PRAMOD BY ADV P K MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 24433 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009 JUDGMENT In this writ petition filed on 24.8.2009, the petitioner challenges Ext.P4 issued by Thiruvananthapuram Corporation on 24.3.2009. That is a notice stating that the application of the petitioner and another for building permit has certain defects including the requirements of clearance of some authorities, without which the application for permit is likely to be rejected. The petitioner did not challenge that notice before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. May be that he could still wait because a further decision by the Corporation rejecting the application for permit can itself be challenged before the Tribunal. On the face of the availability of such an alternative efficacious remedy, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the grounds stated in Ext.P4 relate to the questions which are covered by the judgments of this court and also referable to the nature of the land etc. A perusal of the schedule to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions Rules, 1999 would show Wpc 24433/2009 2 the enormous sweep of subjects that could fall for consideration before the Tribunal and there is abundant opportunity before the Tribunal to raise all contentions against rejection of an application for building permit. In this situation, I do not find any ground to entertain this writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed, without prejudice to alternative remedies in terms of the statutory provisions. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/10/9