IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5692 of 2010(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.D.ANILKUMAR, S/O.DAMODHARAN, AGED 52 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, INNOPACK POLYMER PACKAGINGS PVT.LTD., POOSARI MADA, VEMBATTU, THENKURISSI, PALAKKADU. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, DISTRICT TOWN GRAMA PLANNING OFFICE, PALAKKADU CIVIL STATION, PALAKKADU. 2. THE THENKURISSI GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, THENKURISSI, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKADU. MS.K.R.DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.5692 of 2010 (J) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be the Managing Director of a Company. It is stated that he submitted an application to the 2nd respondent for building permit, which was forwarded to the 1st respondent under cover of Ext.P5. It is stated that along with the application for building permit, he has also produced title deed of the property, which indicates his ownership over the access road as well. It was despite this, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P6 letter to the 2nd respondent pointing out defects in the application made by the petitioner and that one of the defects is that no document has been produced showing title for road access. The petitioner submits that on coming to know of Ext.P6, he submitted Ext.P7 affidavit before the 1st respondent explaining the matter. It is stated that he having already produced his title deed, the objection raised itself is unsustainable. 2. Evidently therefore according to the petitioner, the title WP(C) No.5692/2010 -2- deed answers the defect that is raised in Ext.P6. That apart, this aspect of the matter has been clarified by the petitioner by Ext.P7 affidavit. In such circumstances, it is for the 1st respondent to consider the matter in the light of the title deed mentioned in Ext.P5 and also the clarification offered by the petitioner in Ext.P7 affidavit. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to pass orders in the matter duly adverting to the title deed produced and Ext.P7 affidavit filed by the petitioner. Orders on the application for building permit shall be passed by the 1st respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg