IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2009 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1931 WA.No. 1216 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WOC.9474/2009 Dated 24/03/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- VANI C.R. D/O LATE RAJAN CHORAKODE HOUSE, KINAVELLOOR P.O PALAKKAD DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PALAKKAD 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.MEENA SRI. T.C. SURESH MENON , SC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ---------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1216 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph.J, The appellant herein is the petitioner in the writ petition No. 9474/2006 which has been disposed of by this Court on 24.3.2009. The said writ petition was filed, aggrieved by Ext.P5, passed by the 2nd respondent whereby the application of the appellant for the double-storied residential building permit was rejected on the ground that the proposed building is to be located in an area set apart for paddy cultivation. According to the appellant in view of Ext.P2 order, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer under the Kerala Land utilisation order , there is no justification in rejecting her application for the building permit vide Ext.P5 order. It is seen from Ext.P2 order that the Village Officer has accorded sanction for the construction of a Granery subject to certain conditions. In the above said circumstances it is prayed that this Court may direct the 2nd respondent to re-consider Ext.P5 and pass appropriate orders . 2. The learned single judge of this Court dismissed the said writ petition on the only ground that there is an alternate remedy by filing appeal against Ext.P5 order . There is no quarrel that such an alternate remedy is available to the appellant. The Secretary has not taken into consideration Ext.P2 while passing the impugned order. There are other W.A. No. 1216 of 2009 -2- contentions as well for the appellant and it is prayed that, given one opportunity for hearing the appellant would appraise the Secretary of all the aspects. In that view of the matter we set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Secretary to consider the matter afresh with notice to the appellant and affected parties if any, within three months. The Writ Appeal is allowed as above. (KURIAN JOSEPH ,JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) es. KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. --------------------------- W.A. NO. 1216 OF 2009 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 18th June , 2009