IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 30222 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.O.PAULOSE, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. DEVASSY, VITHAYATHIL HOUSE, KUNNAPILLISSERI PULIYANAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU SRI.M.L.SURESH KUMAR SRI.LOWEL CHERIAN SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA) SMT.K.R.REMYA (KARUKAYIL) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, OFFICE OF THE PROJECT DIRECTOR NO.8/113 ARUMUGAN COLONY, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL BUILDING,CHALAKUDDY THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY KALLAMPALLY, SC FOR R1 MR.M.P.ASOK KUMAR, SC FOR R3. MR.V.MANU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Writ Petition No.30222/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF TAX RECEIPT IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER SHOWING THE PAYEMNT OF TAX IN RESPECT OF 5 CENTS OF LAND IN CHALAKUDY VILLAGE. P2 : COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT. P3 : COPY OF THE SKETCH OF the BUILDING. P4 : COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER NO.E2-6767/09 DATED 30/06/2009 ISSUED BY the 3RD RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY. P5 : COPY OF LETTER NO.NHAI/PD/PALAKKAD/NH47/NOC/2008 DATED 24/10/2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.30222 of 2009 (W) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Exts.P4 & P5. The petitioner made an application to the 3rd respondent for a building permit. That was rejected by Ext.P4 on the ground that by Ext.P5 letter of the 1st respondent, it has been directed to issue building permit only by freezing construction activities within the private boundary for 7.50m. on either side from the new 45m. ROW, and maintaining the existing building line rules of the State Government. It is challenging Exts.P4 & P5, this writ petition is filed., 2. Dealing with similar cases, in the judgment in Peer Mohammed v. Chirakandam Grama Panchayat (2008(3) KLT 300) this Court has held that fixation of building line and control line are to be done in terms of Section 18 of the Highway Protection Act, by issuing a notification, which has to be published in the Official Gazette and news papers. In this case, Ext.P5 is only a communication issued by the 1st WP(C) No.30222/2009 -2- respondent to the 3rd respondent, which does not answer the requirement of Section 18 of the Act. For that reason, Exts.P4 & P5 are to be set aside and I do so. The 3rd respondent is directed to reconsider the application made by the petitioner for building permit in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg