IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2010 / 15TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 24438 of 2009(Y) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- T.K.AHAMED HAJI, THATTANKANDIYIL HOUSE, VANIMEL P.O., VADAKARA. BY ADVS. SRI.P.T.MOHANKUMAR SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------------ THE CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, BEACH ROAD, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPN SRI.K.D.BABU,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/10/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.24438/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 28.1.06. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E1/788/09 DTD. 7.3.09 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.24438 of 2009-Y - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of October, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P2 order passed by the Corporation rejecting the application for building permit for commercial purposes, on the ground that the area is a residential zone. 2. The petitioner is the absolute owner of a parcel of land having an extent of 15 cents in R.S.No.163/1 of Ward No.6 within the limits of the respondent corporation. It is averred in the writ petition that the locality is a highly developed commercial area and it is adjacent to one of the busiest junctions in the city of Kozhikode, where two major city roads meet, viz. Cherooty Road and P.T. Usha Road. 3. The petitioner's contention appears to be that the detailed town planning scheme formulated in the year 1987, was never implemented. 4. The Corporation has filed a counter affidavit disputing the claims of the petitioner. 5. Along with affidavit dated 10.8.2010, the petitioner has produced a location sketch showing the various commercial buildings in and near the vicinity wherein the petitioner's property is located. Learned counsel for wpc 244382/009 2 the petitioner submits that if an opportunity is given, the petitioner will be able to satisfy that the area is not a residential locality. It is further pointed out that the construction of various commercial buildings will show that the D.T.P. Scheme was not at all implemented. 6. Evidently, Ext.P2 has been communicated without hearing the petitioner. In that view of the matter, Ext.P2 is quashed. There will be a direction to the Corporation to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner will produce additional materials along with a request and along with a copy of this judgment, within a period of one month. Thereafter, the application will be reconsidered and a personal hearing also will be given to the petitioner. Appropriate decision will be taken after hearing the petitioner, within a further period of two months. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/