IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25162 of 2008(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ----------------------- 1. GEOGY GEORGE.K, S/O. K.J. GEORGE, AGED 45 YEARS, KOTTUKAPPALLY HOUSE, KALPATHY.P.O, PALAKKAD - 678 003. 2. MINI GEOGY, W/O. GEOGY GEORGE.K, KOTTUKAPPALLY HOUSE, KALPATHY.P.O, PALAKKAD - 678 003. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SRI.T.R.SADEESAN SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALAKKAD. 3. THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA- R1 ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) FOR R2 SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R2 SRI.JIBU P THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.P.S.APPU FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.25162/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3. Ext.P3 is an order passed by the respondent Municipality on an application filed by the petitioner for a building permit. By this order, it has been turned down on the ground that in terms of the DTP Scheme, the land in question has been ear-marked for commercial and industrial mixed zone. It is also stated that only residential building having 100 sq.m. area is permissible. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,though the said DTP scheme was framed as stated in Ext.P3 nothing in pursuance to this has been done. 2. In the statement filed by the Municipality, apart from relying on the provisions of the DTP scheme and Madras Town Planning Act, 1920, Municipality has no case that any steps has been taken in pursuance to the DTP scheme relied 2 on. In view of this I see no justification for restraining the petitioner from enjoying the land in the manner he wants. It is also brought to my notice that in several identical situations relief has been granted by this court and Ext.P5 is one of the judgments. In view of this, I see no justification declining the relief to the petitioner. Accordingly, Ext.P3 will stand quashed. The respondent Municipality shall consider Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. 3