IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2008 / 17TH ASHADHA 1930 W.P.(C).No. 19286 of 2008(U) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K. MAHAMOOD, KEDANHOTH HOUSE, AIRAYYAN, P.O. KUNNUMKARA, VIA CHOMBALA, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DT. BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SRI.M.R.ANISON RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE TOWN PLANNER, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K.R. DEEPA ADV. SRI. P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, SC, R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 19286 OF 2008 - U = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th July 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext. P5 order is under challenge. By Ext. P5, building permit sought for by the petitioner has been rejected stating that the area in question is covered by DTP scheme. However, on facts, it is seen that by Ext. P2 zonal exemption has already been granted to the petitioner and on that basis building permit was also granted. Based on Ext. P2 order of zonal exemption and Ext. P3 building permit petitioner has already constructed three floors. It was thereafter the petitioner made another application seeking permit for construction of additional three floors and that is now rejected by Ext. P5. 2. If at all , the DTP scheme comes in the way, by granting exemptions and building permit the scheme has become irrelevant in so far as the petitioner is concerned. Further, since what he wants is to make additional construction on existing structure, there W.P.(C) No. 19286 OF 2008 -2- need not be any further exemption. Therefore, there is absolutely no justification for rejecting the request of the petitioner for granting permit to construct the additional three floors. 3. In view of this, I cannot uphold Ext. P5 and Ext. P5 will stand quashed. 4. Counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgments of this Court in W.P(C) Nos. 30251 and 22658 of 2007 in support of the petitioner's case. 5. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing that the 3rd respondent shall consider the petitioner's application dated 18.8.2006 mentioned in Ext. P5, if the application is otherwise in order. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-