IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 17335 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ALIYAMMA GEORGE, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. PR. K.GEORGE, DOOR NO.CRA/197, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY VENGOLA, PERUMBAVOOR. *2. SENIOR TOWN PLANNER, ERNAKULAM. * ADDL SECOND RESPONDENT IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 1.7.2009 IN THE WRIT PETITION. ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER I V PRAMOD FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 17335 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 JUDGMENT The Senior Town Planner, in terms of the earlier order, has filed a counter affidavit. While the learned Government Pleader points out that it may not be permissible in law to regularise the construction by ignoring the areas where there is deviation, learned counsel for the petitioner states that his client has filed a revised plan for regularisation and approval on 27.7.2009. This fact, is actually stated in the counter affidavit of the Town Planner also. Yet the learned counsel presses, as of now, only for a direction to consider that revised plan. Recording that submission it is ordered that the Town Planner will look into that plan and issue a decision thereon in accordance with law, within a period of one month from now, if not already taken. All other issues left open. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE 2 lgk/25/8