IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 28395 of 2007(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.RAVEENDRAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, MANGALATHUPUTHEN VEEDU, SAKTHIKULANGARA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH PULIMOOTTIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KOLLAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM. 4. SECRETARY, KOLLAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KOLLAM. 5. DISTRICT TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, KOLLAM. SC, KOLLAM CORPORATION SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA.12116/2007 IN (WPC.28395/2007) CLOSED 11/10/2010 SD/- A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE. APPENDIX (WPC.28395/2007) EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF PERMIT. EXT.P2: true copy of approved plan. Ext.p3: copy of judgment in wpc.222798/2007. Ext.p4: true copy of order dt. 31/8/2007. Ext.p5: true copy of lease agreement dt. 22/9/2000 Ext.p6: true copy of application submitted by petr. dt. 11/9/2007. Ext.p7: true copy of notice issued by R4 dt. 18/9/2007. Ext.p8: true copy of information furnished by information officer of R3 corporation. A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP(C)No. 28395 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of October, 2010 Judgment Basheer, J: Petitioner is the owner of a commercial-cum- residential building situated in R.S.No. 133/17 of Sakthikulangara village within the limits of Kollam Corporation. He had constructed the said building on the strength of Ext.P1 permit and Ext.P2 plan . It is admitted by the petitioner that he had deviated from the plan while constructing the building, inasmuch as that instead of constructing two bed rooms in the upstair portion he had constructed a big hall which was later let out by him to the postal authorities. Further, on the ground floor he had constructed three rooms instead of two and put three shutters. I do not propose to go further into the admitted deviations made by the petitioner while constructing the building ,in view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the Bar. 2. Learned counsel submits that after institution of the writ petition, the Government has introduced certain amendments to the Town Planning Scheme in respect of Kollam Corporation as could be seen from Ext.P9. WPC.28395/2007. : 2 : According to the learned counsel, petitioner would be entitled to get the benefit of the said modified Scheme. He has already approached the Corporation seeking regularisation of the construction made by him. Yet again I do not deem it necessary to refer to or deal with the above contention, since learned counsel submits that petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondents 3 and 4 to consider and pass orders on Ext.P10 application submitted by him seeking the benefit of Ext.P9 Scheme. 3. Learned Standing counsel for the Corporation submits that Ext.P10 application/representation has been received by the Corporation and that a decision will be taken in the matter in accordance with law. 4. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 3 and 4 to consider and pass orders on Ext.P10 representation keeping in view the revised Scheme, if any, applicable to the area in question. 5. A decision in the matter shall be taken as directed above in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It shall be ensured that WPC.28395/2007. : 3 : the petitioner is afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard in the matter before any decision is taken. Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.