IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 19214 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. RUKIA BEEVI, "MUHAIDEEN", H.S.WARD, VALAKKODE P.O., PUNALUR. 2. B.ABDULLA, "MUHAIDEEN", H.S.WARD, VALAKKODE P.O., PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENT: --------------- PUNALUR MUNICIPALITY, PUNALUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19214 of 2009(V) I N D E X PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1:TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.336/09 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DT.11.2.2009 SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF PROPERTY TAX BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P2(a):TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DT.11.2.09 SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF PROPERTY TAX BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P3.TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT NO.BA.547/08-09, DT.20.2.09 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P4:TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.25.06.09 CANCELLING THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P5:TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS ON 30.06.09. EXT.P6:TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.10.06.09 IN W.P(c)NO.15051/09 AND OTHER CONNECTED CASES OF THIS COURT. /True copy/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.19214 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners applied for and were issued building permit on 20.2.2009. The said permit was for a commercial building. The petitioners plead that they arranged funds for the construction from certain financial institutions and were about to commence the construction while they received Ext.P4 communication, dated 25.6.2009, proposing to cancel the building permit on grounds referable to the existence of a DTP scheme which covers the area in question. Going by that notice, construction of a commercial building is not possible in the area in question. Since the petitioners are yet to start the construction of the building, it is ordered that Ext.P5 objections to Ext.P4 will be taken up by the secretary of the municipality and decided upon, after giving the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. It is clarified that this judgment does not express anything on the merits of the case. Let a decision be taken by WPC.19214/09 2 the secretary and issued to the petitioners within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If it were against the petitioners, the reasons thereof shall also be stated so that the petitioners could seek statutory remedies against such decision. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.18/12.