IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 14TH BHADRA 1929 OP.No. 20368 of 1999(Y) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- 1. M.MANIKANTAN AGED 54, S/O. MADHAVAN KUNDATHUKONATHU PUTHEN VEEDU PLAMOODU, PATTOM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. 2. V. MADHUSOODANAN AGED 30, S/O. VELAYUDHAN THENGUM MUDIMBIL VEEDU THURUVICKAL P.O., MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-11. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.PRAKASH PUTHIADAM SRI.S.V.RAJAN SRI.S.K.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT NEW DELHI. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14 4. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 6. THE SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 7. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 8. THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORT (D) DEPT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 9. RAJU GEORGE, S/O. K.J. GEORGE, CRA-A11 KARUKATHARA BUILDINGS, PLAMOODU, PATTOM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4 10. BABU JOSEPH ADDL. PROIVATE SECRETARY TO MINISTER FOR PUBLIC WORKS DEPT., SECRETARIAT KERALA STATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN SRI.JAYAPRADEEP. V., ADDL.CGSC THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/09/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------- O.P. NO. 20368 OF 1999 --------------------- Dated this the 5th day of September, 2007 J U D G M E N T The prayer in this Original Petition is to declare that the 1st respondent is bound to implement the Town Planning Scheme sanctioned as per Ext.P1 order. There is a further prayer to quash Ext.P3 notification modifying Ext.P1 Town Planning Scheme. From the counter affidavit filed in this writ petition it is evident that it is on the basis of public demand that Ext.P1 Scheme was revised and Ext.P3 is the revised scheme. Petitioners have not succeeded in showing that Ext.P3 is vitiated on account of the violation of any of the provisions of the Town Planning Act. Thus Ext.P1 has undergone variation as per Ext.P3 and therefore Ext.P1 cannot be directed to be implemented. In the result, the original petition lacks merit and the petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in this original petition. The original petition is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE vps ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE OP NO.20368/99 JUDGMENT 5th September, 2007