IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 31714 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.K.KAMMED KUTTY, PEZHUTHIYEDAN KOLATHINKAL HOUSE, KEEZHUPARAMBA PO, AREEKODE MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KOZHIKODE CORPORATION REP BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE. 2. SECRETARY,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION KOZHIKODE. 3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER KOZHIKODE CORPORATION KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPN FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C)No.31714/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12.7.2006 EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 14.3.2009 EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.9.2009. EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.9074/2000 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.31714 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who owns a parcel of land in Ward No.V of Kozhikode Corporation, submitted an application under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 to put up a residential building in that parcel of land. The said application was rejected by Ext.P3 order dated 22.9.2009 on the ground that the land falls within the area earmarked for residential purposes under the detailed town planning scheme. It is contended that the reason given by the Secretary of the Kozhikode Corporation to reject the application runs counter to the principles laid down by this Court in Nazar v. Malappuram Municiplity, 2009(3) KLT 92 and in the order passed in R.P.No.1073 of 2009 in that petition. Though respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit, it is evident from the stand taken by them that till date steps have not been taken to notify the disputed land and the lands situated in the neighbourhood under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of the detailed town planning scheme referred to in Ext.P3. In such circumstances I am of the opinion that the issue raised in the instant writ petition is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in Nazar v. Malappuram Municiplity (supra) as clarified in the order W.P(C).No.31714 of 2009 : 2 : in R.P.No.1073 of 2009 reported in Secretary to Government v. Nazar, 2010(1) KLT 286. In that view of the matter it has to be necessarily held that Ext.P2 order cannot be sustained. In the result I allow the writ petition, quash Ext.P3 and direct the Secretary, Kozhikode Corporation, to consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner in the light of the relevant rules and take an appropriate decision thereon expeditiously and in any way within one month from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of the judgment before him. The petitioner shall pay the fee, if any, prescribed under the relevant rules within the time limit fixed by the Secretary of the Corporation. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.31714 of 2009 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 2nd September, 2010