IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 6TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29876 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. V.THIRUVENKITAM, SEEMATTI, K.K.ROAD, MUTTAMBALAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. 2. T.BEENA, SEEMATTI, K.K.ROAD, MUTTAMBALAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN SRI.P.I.GEORGEKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 3. TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.MANU SRI.SIBY MATHEW, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 29876 of 2010 H ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 28th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T In June, 2008, petitioners made an application to the respondent Municipality for the issuance of a building permit for construction of additional floors to their existing building. On different occasions, the respondent Municipality pointed out defects in the plans submitted and revised plans were also submitted. Finally, Ext.P3 order was passed by the Municipality, rejecting the application for building permit, and also requiring the petitioners to demolish certain structures describing the same unauthorised construction. 2. Aggrieved by Ext.P3 order, the petitioners carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The Tribunal considered the appeal and by Ext.P5 order, allowed the appeal in part and set aside Ext.P3 order. Proceeding further, the Tribunal permitted the petitioners to make a fresh application on the basis that WPC.29876/10 : 2 : application made by the petitioners resulting in Ext.P3 order was a defective one. It is challenging Ext.P5, this writ petition is filed. 3. A reading of Ext.P5 order rendered by the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has decided Ext.P4 appeal filed by the petitioners, on grounds found out by itself and not on the grounds which were urged by the petitioners or the Municipality. On that ground itself, the order is unsustainable. 4. Be that as it may, fact remains that, in Ext.P3 order, Ext.P1 application made by the petitioners was rejected on the ground that, in the application and plan submitted, various provisions of the Municipality Building Rules were not complied with. The defects pointed out were not cured by the petitioners and, therefore, necessarily, the defects pointed out by the Municipality will have to be rectified by the petitioners and on that basis only the Municipality can reconsider the matter. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition, clarifying that WPC.29876/10 : 3 : it will be open to the petitioners to rectify the defects pointed out in Ext.P3 order and resubmit an application with necessary documents, in which event, the Municipality will consider the application for building permit and pass orders thereon, in accordance with law. Orders will be passed as above, at any rate, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks