IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 3294 of 2010(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHIBU, S/O VARGHESE, AGED 48 YEARS, ELUVATHINKAL HOUSE, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHALAKURY MUNICIPALITY, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHALAKUDY. 2. SECRETARY, CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHALAKUDY. 3. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERMENTS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SC FOR R1 SRI. M.P. ASHOK KUMAR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.K. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.3294 OF 2010 (J) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2, an order passed by the Secretary of the Municipality rejecting an application made by the petitioner seeking issuance of a building permit for a commercial building. Petitioner obtained a permit for construction of a special residential building. Subsequently by Ext.P1, he sought a revised permit for the construction of a commercial building. That application was rejected by Ext.P2 on the ground that the Scheme does not permit commercial construction in the area and that the plan submitted by him was defective. 2. According to the petitioner, the defect in the plan since been cured. However, in so far as the scheme violation is concerned, petitioner submits that if Ext.P1 guidelines governing Trissur are made applicable to Chalakkudy Municipality where the petitioner sought the building permit, the application is liable to be allowed. Counsel contends that the guidelines in so far as Trissur should be applied to Chalakkudy as WPC.No.3294 /2010 :2 : otherwise equality cannot be maintained among th applicants. 3. However, it is to be noticed that the guidelines concerning Trissur can only be applicable to Trissur as guidelines are framed considering the local conditions prevailing in the area in respect of which it is framed. Such guidelines cannot be applied to any area other than the one for which it is meant. The other contention is that the scheme is outdated and that therefore, the same cannot be followed now. In support of this contention counsel relied on the judgment reported in Nazar V. Malappuram Municipality (2009(3)KLT 92). However this judgment has since been reviewed by the Government in Secretary to Government V. Nazar (2010(1) KLT 286). For these reasons the writ petition is only to be dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.3294 /2010 :3 :