IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8989 of 2010(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- N.K.RAJU, NJALIMAKKAL HOUSE, KOTHALA P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE KOOROPPADA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOOROPPADA P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, N.H.(R)DIVISION, MUVATTUPUZHA. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.8989 OF 2010(W) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner sought permit to construct a building near NH-220. As required under the rules, the first respondent forwarded his request to the 2nd respondent for clearance. Accordingly the 2nd respondent considered the request and by Ext.P2, permitted construction but however directed that a set back of 5 meters from the boundary of N.H should be maintained. When this was received, petitioner submitted Ext.P4 request to the first respondent requesting to reduce the set back to three meters. 2. As is seen from Ext.P2 itself, the set back of 5 meters is a condition imposed by the 2nd respondent and therefore even if any modification is to be made, it is only for that authority to deal with such a request. Since Ext.P4 is made before the first respondent, this court will not be justified in directing the Ist respondent to consider Ext.P4. Therefore the writ petition is dismissed but however clarifying that it will be open the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent and it is for that authority to consider the request. (ANTONY DOMINIC) vi JUDGE WPC.No. /09 :2 :