IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34779 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- SREEKANTAN NAIR, PANCHAMI, VAZHUTHUR, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI SRI.S.S.HUSSAIN SRI.P.K.NIJOY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL AUTHORITIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. NEYYATTINKARA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, NEYYATTINKARA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No. 34779 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Exts.P1, P2 and P4 orders. Ext.P1 is the order of the 2nd respondent Municipality, rejecting the application of the petitioner for building permit on the ground that as per the master plan prepared under the Town Planning Act, the area in question is a residential area and petitioner's application for building permit for construction of a commercial building cannot therefore be granted. Ext.P2 is the order of the Government whereby the petitioner's application for individual exemption from the scheme has been rejected, in view of the fact that this court had in O.P. No.8740 of 1997 held that no such individual exemption can be granted in respect of the scheme. Ext.P4 is a notice issued by the 2nd respondent Municipality, whereby, the petitioner's application for exemption from the purview of the scheme has been rejected. 2. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner in this case. W.P(C)No. 34779 of 2008 - 2 - 3. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that a town planning scheme is in existence. The Municipality has held that as per that scheme the area in question is shown as a residential area and therefore no building permit has been issued for commercial purpose. In so far as Ext.P1 is concerned, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner's remedy lies in challenging the same by filing an appeal as provided under the Kerala Municipality Act. As far as Exts.P2 and P4 are concerned, the same are passed on the basis of a Division Bench decision of this court holding that the Government cannot grant individual exemption from a town planning scheme, and therefore the same cannot be faulted. In the above circumstances, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P1 in an appeal, this writ petition is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs