IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 38208 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.O.SUNIL, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.THANKAPPAN NAIR,AMBADI HOUSE, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. GURUVAYUR MUNICIPALITY, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 4. THE SECRETARY, GURUVAYUR MINICIPALITY, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI FOR R3-4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 38208/08 --------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT. 29-1-2008. EXT.P2 LETTER SENT BY PETITIONER. EXT.P3 LETTER DT. 18-2-2008. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 38208 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 18th March, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner submitted an application for building permit. That was rejected by Ext. P1 on the ground that the permit would violate the zoning regulation. The petitioner therefore approached the Government. The Government, after conducting an enquiry, issued Ext. P3 directing the Chief Town Planner to take urgent necessary action on the proposal submitted by the Chief Town Planner, which is annexed to Ext. P3. The petitioner's grievance is that the Chief Town Planner is not taking action on Ext. P3. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader as also the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. 3. Counsel for the 3rd respondent opposes the prayers of the petitioner on the ground that this Court has already held that individual exemption from a town planning scheme cannot be granted by the Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that this is not an individual exemption at all but an amendment of the scheme itself, which has not been prevented by this Court . 4. I am not going into the merits of the rival contentions. The Chief Town Planner having received Ext. P3 has to consider and pass orders as directed by the Government expeditiously. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to take appropriate steps pursuant to Ext. P3 as warranted by law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent Municipality. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/