IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 9399 of 2008(R) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ABDUL RAHMAN S/O KUNHIMON HAJI BLAHAYIL HOUSE NARIYAMPULLY PUNNAYOOR THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.ISSAC M.PERUMPILLIL RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE SECRETARY THE KUNNAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KUNNAMKULAM BY ADV.SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No. 9399 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that the Municipality is not issuing building permit as directed by this court in Ext.P2 judgment. In the nature of the decision which is being taken in this case, in my opinion, it is not necessary to issue notice to the Municipality. Sri.Issac.M.Perumpillil, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that pursuant to Ext.P2, the Municipality considered the plan submitted by the petitioner for approval. It was found that there was some defects and the petitioner was directed to rectify the defects. Petitioner claims that all the defects have been rectified and Ext.P8 is the acknowledgment issued by the Municipality in that regard. The grievance of the petitioner is that even now final orders have not been passed approving the plan submitted and issuing building permit. Sri.Grashious Kuriakose on behalf of the Municipality submits that the defects were cured and papers were re-submitted by the WPC.No.9399/08 2 petitioner on 15/03/2007. The present petition without giving a breathing time to the Municipality to consider the claim of the petitioner that all the defects have been cured, is pre-mature, it is submitted. Sri.Issac.M.Perumpillil would submit that the delay in the matter of re-submission is only because the defects were noted by the Municipality only long after the revised plan was submitted. Having regard to the rival submissions, I am of the view that the writ petition itself can be disposed of issuing the following directions: The Secretary of the Municipality will consider the revised plan submitted by the petitioner and pass orders on the application for building permit in the light of the directions in Ext.P5 judgment. If the Municipality feels that there still is some reason to decline the permit, the Municipality shall issue a hearing notice to the petitioner and hear the petitioner also before orders are passed. Orders at any rate shall be passed within two weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.9399/08 2