IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 28767 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- HARIDAS K.,S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, PARATH HOUSE, PERUVEMDU P.O. PALAKKAD - 678531, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER PRASANNA VASUDEVAN, 'PRASANNA NILAYAM', KALLELKKADU, NEAR CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,R EPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALAKKAD. 3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, PALAKKAD. 4. CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM. ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SC SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R2 SRI.JIBU P THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.P.S.APPU FOR R2 SRI.A.R.NIMOD FOR R2 SRI.C.A.ANOOP FOR R2 GP SRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).28767/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. An application made by the petitioner for a building permit was rejected by Ext.P4 order on the ground that the area is covered by a Town Planning Scheme. Against the said order, petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal resulting in Ext.P5 order, by which the Municipality was directed to reconsider the matter. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 2. It is now brought to my notice that during the pendency of this matter, at the instance of the Municipality itself, the Scheme has been revised by the Government. Therefore, pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal as contained in Ext.P5 order and in view of the modification that the Scheme has undergone, the application of the petitioner is liable to be reconsidered. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider the application made by the W.P.(C).28767/09 2 petitioner for issuance of a building permit, in the light of the Scheme as revised. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, as any rate, within eight weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs