IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 13279 of 2007(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ AUGUSTINE, S/O.JOSEPH, EDAYODIYIL HOUSE, KARIKKODU,THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, THODUPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY,THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, THODUPUZHA. 3. MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.CHAMIKUTTY ACHARI, CHOOKANA VEETTIL, KARIKKODE,THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SOYUZ FOR R1 & R2 SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR FOR R3 SRI.PRABHU VIJAYAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO. 13279/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: True copy of the application for building permit dated 27-10-2004 P2: True copy of the petition filed by the petitioner dated 1-12-06 P3: True copy of the No.BA 453/04-05 dated 16-2-2006 P4: True copy of the order in appeal No.138/2006 dated 27-5-2006 of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. P5: True copy of the order No.BA 453/04-05 dated 19-10-2006 P6: True copy of the notice No.BA 456/05 dated 24-1-2007 P7: True copy of the building permit with plan dated 10-11-2006 Pius C. Kuriakose, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 13279 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of January,2008 JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the respondent Municipality submits that the premises in respect of which building permit has been given to the 3rd respondent for construction of commercial building is different from premises in respect of which a residential building permit was given to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that question as to whether the permits are different and whether the permit for commercial building granted to the 3rd respondent is in accordance with law are to be considered in a fresh proceeding to be initiated as per the Municipalities Act. 2. Under these circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition holding that the petitioner has to seek his remedy, if any, available under the statute for redressal of his grievances. It will be open to the petitioner to raise the issue regarding the identity of the premises also. Pius C. Kuriakose, Judge. 2 mn.