IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 21519 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. DR.D.L.ANISH, S/O.Y.DEVASENAN, D.L.NIVAS, KADAVATHANAM, NEYYATTINKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DR.ANNIE EDWIN, W/O.DR.D.L.ANISH, D.L.NIVAS, KADAVATHANAM, NEYYATTINKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN SMT.NITA.N.S. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SPECIAL SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION & SOCIAL WELFARE (G) DEPT., GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, TOWN PLANNING OFFICE, KOTTARATHIL BUILDINGS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SHRI C.M.SURESH BABU FOR R1, R3 & R5 ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 & 4 SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR FOR R2 & 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 21520 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)Nos.21519 & 21520 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF AUGUST, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of the application for building permit produced as per Exhibit P2 in both the Writ Petitions. What is mentioned as a reason for rejection of the building permit is that the property has to be acquired for Staff Quarters under the Medical College Area Development Scheme. Certain other defects have also been pointed out in the communication. 2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the other respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the reason shown cannot be supported in the light of the fact that when there is no proposal for acquisition of any property so far. In similar cases, this Court has already directed the Corporation to issue building permits, especially in the light of the decision reported in Padmini v. State of Kerala (1999(3) KLT 465). Exhibits P3 and P4 are the copies of the judgments rendered by this Court in similar circumstances. The very same question was considered by this Court recently in W.P.(C)No.29325/2009 and connected cases and the matter was considered in the light of the decision of the Division Bench W.P.(C)Nos.21519 & 21520/10 -2- of this Court in Padmini's case(supra) and that of the Apex Court in Raju S.Jethmalani v. State of Maharashtra (2005(11) SCC 222). In similar circumstances, it was held that in the absence of a proposal or even action for acquiring any property for implementing the scheme, the application for building permit cannot be rejected. Herein, evidently, without acquiring the properties, the scheme cannot be implemented. 4. In that view of the matter, in the light of the dictum laid down in the above two cases, the objection cannot be sustained. Therefore, the impugned orders are quashed. There will be a direction to the Secretary of the Corporation to reconsider the applications in accordance with the rules and pass appropriate orders and communicate the same to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If any defects have to be cured and other formalities are remaining to be complied with, the petitioners will comply with the same without delay. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. Sd/-(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE). dsn True copy P.A.to Judge.