IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2011 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9957 of 2011(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S.HOLIDAY HERITAGE(P) LTD., H.I.G. 5, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI 682 036, REP.BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER P.I.THOMAS. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA (THROUGH)(REP.BY) THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (RB) DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN- 695 001. 2. THE MARADU MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, MARADU P.O, KOCHI 682 304, (REP.BY ITS SECRETARY). 3. THE SECRETARY,MARADU MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, MARADU.P.O, KOCHI 682 304. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.CHANDRASENAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.9957 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated 8th April, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Earlier, they have applied for a building permit for construction of residential buildings in the plot of land comprised in Survey Nos.178 and 180 in Maradu Village. Ext.P1 permit was granted subsequently. Later, respondents 2 and 3 have revoked the same. Challenging the order of revocation the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.24709 of 2007. Ext.P3 would reveal that the said order of revocation was stayed by this Court and it is still in force. In fact, the said writ petition is still pending. Pending the said writ petition the petitioner has applied for renewal of Ext.P1 permit as per Ext.P4. However, the second respondent refused to renew the permit as per Ext.P5. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P6 application. On receipt of Ext.P6, the matter was again considered and it was again rejected as per Ext.P7. In the said circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Exts.P5 and P7 orders. As noticed earlier, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C)No.24709 of 2007 on being aggrieved by the order of revocation of Ext.P1. Ext.P3 would reveal that the order of WP(C).No.9957/2011 2 revocation has been stayed by this Court and the said order is still in force. The said writ petition is also still pending. In fact, the reason assigned in Exts.P5 and P7 is that neither the Secretary of the Local Self Government Department nor this Court has issued any direction to renew the building permit and therefore they are not in a position to renew the permit, especially in view of the revocation of Ext.P1. As already noticed hereinbefore, the order of revocation of Ext.P1 now stands stayed by this Court. In the said circumstances, I am of the considered view that the respondents are bound to consider the request of the petitioner for renewal of Ext.P1 permit. However, if the petitioner is otherwise entitled to get renewal of Ext.P1 licence it shall be renewed on condition that any further construction if effected would be at the risk of the petitioner and would be subject to the outcome of W.P(C)No.24709 of 2007. It shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two weeks. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS