IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 19212 of 2008(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.G. NARAYANAN NAIR NEPHEW OF GOVINDA PILLAI, AGED 80, PURATHINAI HOUSE, HARIHARA IYER ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADV. MR.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR), MR.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V. MANU. R2 BY ADV. MR.V.M.KURIAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 19212/2008-K APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE NO.46 ISSUED FROM DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LT), KOTTAYAM ON 12/08/1994. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.B.A.30/07-08 DATED 01/12/2007 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE CUM ORDER NO.B.A.30/07-08 DATED 10/06/2008 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 20/07/2005 BEARING NO.32249/G/1/05/LSD. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.19212 OF 2008 (K) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Prayer sought in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P3, an order passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the application made by the petitioner for building permit. Petitioner submits that he is the owner of an extent of 8.08 ares of land covered by Ext.P1 document. He applied to the respondent Municipality for a permit to construct a commercial building. That was allowed. Subsequently, he submitted a revised application for making additional construction of residential apartments on the existing structure. That was considered and rejected by Ext.P3. 2. In Ext.P3 the reason stated is that as per the published master plan, the area is included in mixed zone and therefore the proposed project of the petitioner comes in conflict with the master plan. Petitioner has produced Ext.P4, a letter dated 20.7.2005 issued by the Secretary to the Local Administration Department to the Secretary of the Municipality, which indicates that the master plan has not been approved by the Government. It is on this basis, WPC.No.19212 /08 :2 : counsel contends that in the absence of approved and published master plan the reason stated in Ext.P3 is illegal. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the Municipality also they have no case that there is an approved master plan. On the other hand, they seem to make reference to the master plan which is forwarded to the Government and state that the project of the petitioner is in violation of the said plan. Unless a master plan is approved and published, no action can be taken for violation of it. Therefore Ext.P3 order rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner cannot sustain. 4. Accordingly, Ext.P3 is quashed and the 2nd respondent is directed to pass fresh orders on the application made by the petitioner in the light of the above and as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.19212 /08 :3 :