IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16858 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SMT.PRINCY CHARLSON,AGED 41 YEARS, W/O.PULIKKOTTIL MATHAI CHARLSON,PULIKKOTTIL HOUSE, WEST MANGAD,PAZHANHI(VIA)KUNNAMKULAM, REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY M.A.MUBARAK ALI,AGED 59 YEARS,S/O.LATE ABDUL KHADER,R/AT KALLUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PRIYADARSHIN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE PO,THRISSUR-680003. BY ADV. SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.PRABHA R.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KUNNAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KUNNAMKULAM. 2. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT., LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT. R2 & R3 BY G.P. SMT. K.R. DEEPA R1 BY ADV. SHRI GRACIOUS KURIAKOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 16858 of 2010-F - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is seeking to quash Ext.P7 communication issued by the Secretary of the Municipality, rejecting the application for grant of building permit. It is mainly pointed out therein that the area is earmarked for commercial purpose as per the D.T.P. Scheme. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court has already considered a similar issue in Ext.P8 judgment, in which the property involved is the adjoining property of the petitioner. Therein, after notice to the parties, this Court noticed the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the Scheme has not been approved or notified by the respondents. Accordingly, it was held that only when there is an approved and notified Scheme, the Municipality can reject an application on the ground of violation of the Scheme. Since the same set of facts are evident from the proceedings issued as per Ext.P7, it cannot be sustained. 3. Therefore, Ext.P7 is quashed. There will be a direction to the first respondent to reconsider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner in accordance with rules and pass appropriate orders within a 16858/2010 2 period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/