IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC SATURDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2010 / 10TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 16883 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BAIJU MOL, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O.BABU, KITARATHIL HOUSE, KOTAKARA P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.G.SURESH SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SMT.K.VIDYA SRI.M.R.VIBIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KOTAKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, KOTAKARA P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR. 3. SUBRAMANYANAM, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.CHENNAN, THOZHUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERAMBRA P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR. ADDRESS OF R3 IS CORRECTED AS SUBRAMANYAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O CHENNAN, THOZHUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHUKULANGARA DESOM, KOTAKARA P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR. (As per order dated 7.12.09 in I.A.15092/09) ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ FOR R1 SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY FOR R3 SMT.K.R.RIJA FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No. 16883 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated, this the 30th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner submits that she made Ext.P3 application for a building permit. On its receipt, Panchayat issued Ext.P8 communication informing the petitioner that in order to consider the application, petitioner should produce documents evidencing that she has an access to the site in question. Petitioner's case is that on receipt of Ext.P8, she submitted Ext.P4 series of documents whereby, according to him, the neighbouring landlords have consented to provide access to the site. It is stated that even after production of Ext.P4 series, Secretary has not considered Ext.P3 application aggrieved by which, the writ petition is filed. 2. Although it is the case of the resondents that Ext.P8 reflects consideration of the application and that the petitioner has not produced title deed of the area through which he claims access to the site, considering the materials on record, I am satisfied that the Secretary has not considered Ext.P3 in the light of Ext.P4 series of documents produced by the petitioner. W.P.(C).16883/09 2 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P3 application in the light of Ext.P4 series of documents produced by the petitioner. Orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment, with notice to the petitioner. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs