IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 20265 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- DEEPA DAYANAND, AGED 45 YEARS, D/O.P.G.SUKUMARAN, 6/822, YMCA CROSS ROAD, KOZHIKODE -1. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF ADMINISTRATION GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CORPORATION OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE CALICUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CALICUT. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, SC FOR CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 20265 OF 2008 K ==================== Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Heard both sides. 2. The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2, an order passed by the respondent Corporation declining a building permit to the petitioner on the ground that the land in question is included in a DTP scheme. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the judgments of this court in Padmini v. State of Kerala (1999(3) KLT 465) and Raj S.Jathmalani and others v. State of Maharashtra (2005(11) SCC 222), contends that the reason stated in Ext.P2 is totally illegal. It is stated that even without taking any steps for implementing the scheme as contemplated, it is not proper for the Corporation to deny the permit and thus deprive the owners of the properties from their natural right of enjoying the land in the manner they deems fit. 3. Having gone through Ext.P2 and the law laid down by this court and the Apex Court judgments referred to above, I think the petitioner is justified in his submission. WPC 20265/08 :2 : Therefore, Ext.P2 will stand quashed and the writ petition will stand disposed of directing reconsideration of the application made by the petitioner, if the application is otherwise in order. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp