IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35592 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- G.KRISHNAN,S/O.GANGAYYA,SREEPADAM, T.C.24/676,METTUKKADA,THYCAUD.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY,CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PALAYAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. M/S.INDUS TOWERS LTD,8TH FLOOR, VANKARATH TOWERS,N.H.BYE PASS,PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN-24,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 4. SURENDRAN,TC 24/674(2),SHAN TOWERS, METTUKKADA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT.LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI.P.K. MANOJ KUMAR, SC FOR R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.35592 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P7 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions to the extent it reserves liberty with the third respondent to submit a fresh application for building permit or an application to regularise the construction is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Aggrieved by a building permit issued to the third respondent on Ext.P2 application for permit, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. That appeal was disposed of by Ext.P7 order dated 11.11.2010. In that appeal, the Tribunal called for the relevant files. After perusing the files,the Tribunal noticed that the application for building permit itself has not been duly filled up and was defective. It proceeded to hold that on the defective application, a building permit could not have been issued. The Tribunal accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the building permit initially granted to the third respondent, with the observation that it will be open to the third respondent to file a fresh application for permit or seek regularisation of the building. The Tribunal did not however go into the merits of the petitioner's contention that the telecommunication tower put up by the third W.P.(C) No.35592 of 2010 2 respondent is one in violation of the rules. In my opinion, the challenge to the observations in Ext.P7 is misconceived. As noticed earlier, the Tribunal set aside the building permit only on the ground that the application for building permit was not duly filled up and it is defective. If that be so, the observation made by the Tribunal that it will be open to the third respondent to submit a fresh application for permit or to seek regularisation of the existing permit cannot be said to be illegal. I, therefore, find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.