IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14717 of 2009(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER/PETITIONER ------------------------------------- S. SREELEELA, RAJASREE, TC 6/435(2), MANJADI ROAD, CHERUVAKKAL, THURUVICKAL P.O., TRIVANDRUM-31. BY ADV. MR.L.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. TRIVANDRUM TOWN PLANNING TRUST, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, TOWN PLANNING OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R3 BY MR.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.MATHEW VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 14717 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF JUNE, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned senior counsel for the third respondent and learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2. This writ petition is filed on 27.5.2009 challenging Ext.P5 decision by which the Town Planning Officer of Trivandrum Corporation has rejected the application of the petitioner for a building permit. The ground stated for rejection is that the land in question falls within the green strip of the DTP Scheme for development of Medical College area. Obviously, the petitioner was not given an opportunity of pre-decisional hearing. This gains more importance because the petitioner points out that even in Ext.P4 judgment, this court had held that owing to the enormous delay in making that scheme operational, it has become oppressive and following the earlier decisions of this court, the citizens are entitled to building permit with reference to any inhibition that could be created on the basis of any development WP(C)14717/2009 2 scheme. Therefore the petitioner was entitled to demonstrate before the competent authority that application for permit be not rejected. The impugned order is one that would have been issued only on or after 2.4.2009 and therefore I am satisfied that this writ petition is filed within the period within which it could have been entertained as a revision by the Tribunal for Local Self Government institutions. Therefore without expressing either way on merits, the impugned Ext.P5 is quashed and the respondents are directed to provide the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and also to produce documents including judgments as may be relevant for the issue. Let a final decision follow within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All other issues left open. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/9/6