IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 WA.No. 125 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.24468/2009 Dated 29/10/2009 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4: --------------------------------- 1. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, CORPORATION OFFICE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION OFFICE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR SMT.SUSHYA RAJAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & FIRST RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------- 1. USHAKUMARI, W/O.ANILKUMAR, BNRA-131, SIVAKRIPA, N.C.C.ROAD, PEROORKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.M.SREEKUMAR FOR R1 SR. G.P. SRI.C.M.SURESHBABU FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN, AG. C.J. & C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.125 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010. JUDGMENT Raman, Ag. C.J. The appellant is the Corporation of Trivandrum. They are aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The first respondent herein applied for building permit which was earlier refused by the Corporation of Trivandrum, which was the subject matter of challenge before the statutory Tribunal, which after considering the rival contentions, by Ext.P5 order allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and in paragraph 9 of Ext.P5 there is a clear finding that the only reason for rejecting the building permit stated in the order is that the Regional Town Planner informed that the concurrence cannot be granted as the site comes within the area of Medical College Development Plan. When enquired whether there was any Development Plan as approved and published as required under Section 572 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, the Corporation pleaded ignorance. It was admitted that the land was not brought under the W.A. 125/2010 2 acquisition proceeding. Mere proposal, in such circumstances, for acquiring the land is no reason to refuse the building permit. In those circumstances, the order refusing to grant building permit was set aside as it was not based on any sustainable grounds as specified in Section 393 of the Kerala Municipalities Act. After doing so, the Corporation was directed to pass appropriate orders. The Corporation instead of challenging the order passed by the statutory Tribunal, nor filing any Review Petition there, disposed of the matter pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal again rejecting the building permit sought for. This was challenged in the Writ Petition filed by the party respondent. The learned Single Judge found that the order passed by the Tribunal is an order inter-parties and binding on them. So they cannot neutralise the order by subsequent order passed and accordingly, he allowed the Writ Petition and directed the Municipality to give the building permit as applied for. 2. We have heard learned Senior counsel Sri.N.Nandakumara W.A. 125/2010 3 Menon and Adv. Sri.P.K.Manoj Kumar appearing along with him, as also the learned Senior counsel Sri.V.Chitambaresh and also the Government Pleader. The fact that Ext.P5 order passed by the Tribunal has become final is beyond dispute and that the Corporation was a party to the said order. In such circumstances, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the Corporation cannot nullify the order of the Tribunal by subsequent order passed is correct in law. We concur with the said view expressed by the learned Single Judge. No reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Further, we may also notice that the rejection was based on the premise that the area is earmarked as green strip of land. However, the finding is that several buildings are situated there and already permits are granted for more buildings. The stand of the Corporation is that subsequent to the scheme, nobody has been given permit. Even though it is pointed out that only after obtaining exemption order from the Government such permit was granted earlier, this itself shows that the very purpose is W.A. 125/2010 4 defeated by granting exemption and at the same time taking hostile discrimination against the respondent herein. In such circumstances also, the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. In the circumstances, Writ Appeal is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN Acting Chief Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms