IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 22534 of 2010(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. P.N. KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O.NANU, RESIDING AT 177, 'HILL GARDENS', KUTTANELLUR, THRISSUR-680 014. 2. T.S. MALATHY,W/O.P.N. KRISHNAKUMAR, RESIDING AT 177, 'HILL GARDENS', KUTTANELLUR, THRISSUR-680 014. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS, SRI.P.GOPINATH. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 2. THE GURUVAYOOR MUNICIPALITY, GURUVAYOOR MUNICIPAL OFFICE-680 101, GURUVAYOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.A.J. VARGHESE. R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 22534/2010-N APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.BA 1925/10 DATED 22/03/2010 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY MR.SUJITH P.KUMAR UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE RIGHT TO INFORATION ACT DATED 07/04/2010. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY ON 05/05/2010. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 02/02/1976 ISSUED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE MADRAS TOWN PLANNING ACT OF 1920. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 22534 of 2010-N - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of July, 2010. JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the communication issued by the Municipality rejecting the applications for building permit, this writ petition has been filed. The reason shown is that the lands belonging to the petitioners are reserved for parking and open space under a master plan, viz. D.T.P. Scheme. 2. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality. It is submitted that the existing building is sought to be renovated and extended, but since the petitioners had constructed the existing building without obtaining proper permit, already proceedings are pending under Section 406 of the Act and the present order, Ext.P1 has been actually issued in those proceedings, without reference to the alleged violations in the construction. Learned counsel for the Municipality also submitted that the DTP Scheme has been amended recently and the amended scheme permits construction of residential houses in the particular area in question. 3. In that view of the matter, Ext.P1 cannot survive and hence it is quashed. The matter will be reconsidered by the Municipality in accordance with the rules. The finalisation of the proceedings under Section 406 of the wpc 22534/2010 2 Act will be done only after hearing the petitioners and the application for building permit also will be disposed of in accordance with the rules, expeditiously. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/