IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 W.P(C).No. 11250 of 2008(L) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- C.S. JAYARAMAN, S/O. LATE C.S.SUBRAMANIA IYER, AGED 39 YEARS, 1/607, OLD KALPATHI, PALAKKAD-3. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY. 3. THE SECRETARY, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE,PALAKKAD. 4. THE ART & HERITAGE COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) FOR R2 & 3 SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R2 & 3 SRI.JIBU P THOMAS FOR R2 & 3 SRI.P.S.APPU FOR R2 & 3 GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 11250 OF 2008 L ==================== Dated this the 4th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was issued Ext.P1 building permit on the strength of which he commenced construction. While the work was in progress, on 3/3/2008 referring to Ext.P3 dated 24/1/2008, the Municipality issued Ext.P2 requiring the Petitioner to stop further work. From Ext.P2 what is seen is that the site in question has been identified by the 4th respondent as a heritage site. It was challenging Ext.P2 the writ petition was filed by the petitioner mainly contending that Ext.P3 relied on in Ext.P2 was issued long after Ext.P1 building permit. 2. In the writ petition, counter affidavit has been filed by the Municipality in which it is contended inter alia that the petitioner had violated some of the conditions of the building permit. After the affidavit was filed by the Municipality, the petitioner submitted a revised plan before the Municipality for approval and it is now disclosed that the revised plan has been forwarded by the Municipality to the 4th respondent for their clearance. According to the Municipality, they are awaiting the decision of the 4th respondent on the revised plan for further consideration of the WPC 11250/08 :2 : revised plan submitted by the petitioner. 3. Thus, what is needed is that a decision on the revised plan submitted by the petitioner is what is necessary at this stage in order to enable the Municipality to take a decision in this matter, which is awaiting the decision of the 4th respondent on the revised plan submitted by the petitioner and forwarded by the Municipality as per Ext.P5. 4. Taking into account this situation, I direct that the 4th respondent shall take a decision on Exts. P5 and P6 representation submitted by the petitioner. This shall be done by the 4th respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Depending upon the decision of the 4th respondent, the Municipality in turn shall take a final decision on the revised building permit sought for by the petitioner. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 4th respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp