IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 22ND MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4470 of 2010(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M.A.MOHAN, SUDHARMA, MARIYAPALLY POST, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE KOTTYAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY KOTTAYAM. 3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW FOR R1&2 SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU FOR R1&2 SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) FOR R1&2 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 4470 OF 2010 (G) ===================== Dated this the 11th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P1 order passed by the Kottayam Municipality as early as on 29/5/2007 rejecting an application made by the petitioner for a building permit. The challenge against Ext.P1, at this distance of time, is highly belated. However, counsel for the petitioner seeks to explain the delay by making reference to Ext.P9, a communication received by him from the Municipality on 10/8/2009, which, according to him, suggests that the reason stated in Ext.P1 for rejection of the application is incorrect. Counsel submits that it is only on receipt of Ext.P9 that the petitioner has realised the fallacy of Ext.P1. 2. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the primary challenge is against Ext.P1, in my view, the cause of action at this distance of time is stale and cannot be revived. Therefore, the option available to the petitioner is to make a fresh application taking advantage of Ext.P9. 3. While the challenge against Ext.P1 is rejected, it is clarified that it will be open to the petitioner to make a fresh WPC 4470/10 :2 : application for building permit, in which event, the same shall be dealt with by the 1st respondent expeditiously. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp