IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 13155 of 2009(L) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M/S. ARDRA ASSOCIATES, CAPITAL TOWERS, PATTURAIKKAL, TRISSUR-22, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.V.PARAMESWARAN, S/O LATE R.VASU IYER, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'SIVA-SAKTHI', THOTTEKKAT LANE, POONKUNNAM, TRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.P.GOPINATH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THE TRISSUR CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. MR.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.13155 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner has a building permit for a residential building. It has applied for conversion of the user of the building and also for revision of the permit to enable it to put up a non- residential building. That conversion is sought for in relation to a building, the construction of which is not completed. The only ground on which the request is now refused is on account of the provision of a Town Planning Scheme. However, that scheme has not been operational and with the passage of time, it has essentially turned obsolete. Following the decision of this Court in Padmini v. State of Kerala [1993(3) KLT 465] and in W.P(C).10657/08, Ext.P3 is to be set aside. 2.Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation states that though Ext.P3 reflects only the ground referable to the DTP scheme, as a matter of fact, the request of the petitioner is objectionable on different other grounds also. It is stated that WPC.13155/09 Page numbers the purpose sought for being non-residential, the approach road etc. have to be in terms of the rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that his client has filed an affidavit in this case, undertaking that the carpet area and other requisites could be trimmed down to make the structure within the permissible limits, having regard to the available lay out including the pathway. These are matters which are recorded herein only to note the submission since these matters do not reflect in the impugned Ext.P3. 3. For the aforesaid reasons, Ext.P3 is quashed and it is directed that the Corporation will re-consider the application of the petitioner de novo, without reference to the DTP scheme and taking into consideration all the aforesaid other relevant matters. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.25/6.