IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1830 of 2011(C) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MANOJ KUMAR .P, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.SANKUTTY VAIDYAR, PROPRIETOR, SAI VANDANAM ASSOCIATES, BUILDINGS & DESIGNERS NEAR TAGORE HALL, R.C.ROAD, KOZHIKODE – 32. BY ADVS. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL, SRI.N.M.MADHU, SMT.C.S.RAJANI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE CORPORATION COUNCIL OF KOZHIKODE, CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE. R1 & R2 BY SRI. K.D. BABU, S.C. SRI. P.V. SURENDRANATH, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.1830/2011-C: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 29/11/2007. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 15/02/2010. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 16/06/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 09/02/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.4.A: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE R.1. EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT.P.4. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 06/01/2011. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 18/05/2009. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE INFORMATION DTD. 16/06/2010. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ANSWERS DTD. 04/08/10 FURNISHED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL. EXT.P.9.A: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 15/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) 1830 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who is a proprietor of Sai Vandanam Associates engaged in the business of construction of building filed Ext.P1 application dated 29.11.20074 for building permit to construct a multi storied building. After considering Ext.P1 application, the first respondent rejected Ext.P1 application as per Ext.P3. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P3 order, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P9 appeal before the second respondent. Ext.P9 is an appeal preferred under Section 509 of Kerala Municipality Act. It is aggrieved by the delay in the matter of disposal of Ext.P9 appeal that this writ petition has been filed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Ext.P9 is a statutory appeal filed under Section 509 of Kerala Municipality Act raising grievances against Ext.P3 order of rejection of building permit. Since Ext.P9 is a statutory appeal and the second respondent is the appellate authority in terms of the said provision, the second respondent is duty bound to consider and pass orders on Ext.P9 appeal. Therefore, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions raised WPC No.1830/2011 2 in this writ petition, it is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P9 expeditiously, in accordance with law, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE jma