IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 6721 of 2011(M) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ BONEY.T.A, THAPPALODOTH HOUSE, EDAPALLY, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. SRI.P.M.HARIS (POOTHULIL) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. CHERANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, S.CHITTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST., PIN-682 027. 2. SECRETARY, CHERANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, S.CHITTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST., PIN-682 027. 3. KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/ SECRETARY TO SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH,SC,COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.6721 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated 29th March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is the absolute owner in possession of properties comprised in Survey Nos.307/4, 307/5, 307/6 and 629 of Cheranellore Village filed this writ petition mainly with the prayer to quash Exts.P3 and P4 and also seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to consider Exts.P1 and P2 without insisting clearance from the third respondent. Exts.P3 and P4 are the communications issued to the petitioner intimating him about the rejection of the applications for building permit. Obviously, the applications were rejected on the ground that the site in respect of which applications have been made fall within the CRZ-3 category and therefore, Panchayat directed the petitioner to obtain clearance from the third respondent. 2. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.5660 of 2011. Along with the same, the petitioner has produced Exts.P5 and P6 applications submitted before the Coastal Zone Management Authority. When this matter was taken up for consideration, The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to confine the prayers to one for a direction to the Coastal Zone Management Authority WP(C).No.6721/2011 2 to consider Exts.P5 and P6 applications and to pass orders thereon. The learned counsel further submitted that in a similar matter viz., W.P.(C) No.2697 of 2007, under similar circumstances, this Court directed the Coastal Zone Management Authority to take appropriate decision after considering the applications. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for th petitioner and also the learned standing counsel for the third respondent. Evidently, according to the petitioner, the site in question falls within the CRZ-2 whereas according to the Panchayat, it falls within CRZ-3. In view of the said dispute and also considering the fact that the petitioner has already approached the Coastal Zone Management Authority with Exts.P5 and P6 applications, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Coastal Zone Management Authority to consider the question as to whether the site in respect of which Exts.P5 and P6 applications have been submitted by the petitioner falls within the CRZ-2 or CRZ-3 in terms of the Coastal Zone Management Plan prepared by the said Authority in pursuance to the relevant notifications issued by the Coastal Zone Management Authority and Exts.P5 and P6 applications submitted by the petitioner shall be considered by the Authority and appropriate orders shall be passed thereon. A decision thereon shall be WP(C).No.6721/2011 3 taken expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // true copy // P.S. to Judge