IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26275 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.M.SULAIMAN, S/O.M.S.MUHAMMED KANNU RAWTHER, MELUKHANPARAMBIL, DARUSSALAM, PETTA, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMMED RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, THODUPUZHA. 2. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SOYUZ, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.26275 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondent municipality. 2.The petitioner applied for a building permit. That was rejected on the premise that the land forms part of a larger holding, which is being considered for acquisition for the purpose of the municipality, to establish a fish market. The petitioner filed an appeal against that decision to the Council of the municipality. The Council has resolved that it need not deviate from the decision of the secretary. Under normal circumstances, a decision refusing a building permit is a matter to be carried to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions; neither to the Council nor to this Court. But, the facts of this case show that the petitioner would stand singled out if relief, as sought for by him, is not granted. The fact of WPC.26275/09 Page numbers the matter remains that no acquisition proceedings has been commenced. It also is a matter of record that this Court had considered the question of the acquisition earlier and had issued Ext.P10 judgment, which was accepted by the municipality and building permits were issued to the petitioners in that case. Therefore, I do not find that the municipality could apply a different yardstick in the case of the petitioner. With the aforesaid materials, the impugned decisions are quashed and it is ordered that the application of the petitioner for building permit will be taken up, considered and permit issued, if it is otherwise in order, without reference to the decision contained in Ext.P12. Let the needful be done within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.3/10.