IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2009 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 24468 of 2009(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- USHAKUMARI, W/O.ANILKUMAR, BNRA-131, SIVAKRIPA, N.C.C.ROAD, PEROORKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.M.SREEKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, CORPORATION OFFICE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, CORPORATION OFFICE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. V. MANU, R2 TO R4 BY MR.N. NANDAKUMARA MENON, S.C. ADV. MR. P.K. MANOJ KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.24468/2009-C: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ZE/1461/08 DTD. 07/02/09 ISSUED BY THE R.4. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C). NO.6790/07 DTD. 28/02/2007. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C). NO.9239/09 DTD. 23/03/2009. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE R.2. DTD. 16/05/09 IN APPEAL NO. 294/09. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO. 294/09 DTD. 18/05/09 OF THE LSGI, TVM. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ZK-1461/08 DTD. 15/07/09. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.24468 of 2009-C = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of October, 2009. JUDGMENT Read the order dated 16.9.2009. Following that, a statement has been placed on record by the second respondent disclosing that the situation that led to the issuance of the impugned order is generated by the existence of certain town planning schemes and the fact that under those schemes, the land is earmarked as a green strip. However, respondents 1 to 4 do not justify the action, in any manner, contradictory to the decision passed by the Tribunal in favour of the petitioner. The impugned action is clearly in violation of Ext.P5 order of the Tribunal which binds the parties. That is rendered by a statutory Tribunal. The earlier decision of the Corporation has merged in Ext.P5 decision of the Tribunal. Therefore, the impugned Ext.P6 order is WPC24468/09 -: 2 :- without jurisdiction. The same is accordingly quashed and it is ordered that the application of the petitioner for permit shall be taken up and the building permit issued since the only objection stated is that mentioned in Ext.P6 which does not survive Ext.P5. Let that be done within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/051109