IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 884 of 2011(I) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- E. ABDUL SALEEM, S/O.MUSTAFA, MUHAMMED MANZIL, JUBILY ROAD, UPHILL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR, SRI.K.RAKESH. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN- 676 505. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, TRIVANDRUM- 695 001. R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.V. MANU. R1 BY ADV. MR.E.S.M. KABEER, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) 884 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has submitted an application before the first respondent Municipality for building permit to construct a residential house within the local limits of the said Municipality. Later, he was issued with Ext.P1 order refusing the grant of building permit on the ground of existence of D.T.P Scheme. Evidently, the said master plan was approved as early as on 1984. Admittedly, despite the lapse of about 26 years, since the approval of said master plan, no land within the said local limits has been acquired. In view of the said position and also in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Raj S. Jathmalani & others v. State of Maharashtra(2005(11) SCC 222). The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said stand taken by the respondent Municipality cannot be sustained. Under similar circumstances, aggrieved by the refusal of building permit by the very same Municipality, another applicant approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.37067/2009. The judgment of which is produced in this writ petition as Ext.P2. After considering wpc 884/2011 2 all aspects of the matter especially in the light of the decision in Raj S. Jathmalani's case(Supra), this Court held that the stand taken by the respondent could not be sustained. In view of the aforesaid indisputable position, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition. Ext.P1 is quashed and accordingly the Secretary of the Malappuram Municipality is directed to re- consider the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit in accordance with the provisions contained in the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and to take appropriate decision thereon, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Disposed of accordingly. Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE jma //true copy// P.A to Judge