High Court Kerala High Court

Haridas K. vs State Of Kerala on 3 February, 2010

Kerala High Court
Haridas K. vs State Of Kerala on 3 February, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 28767 of 2009(M)


1. HARIDAS K.,S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, PARATH
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,R EPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY

3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, PALAKKAD

4. CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, OFFICE OF THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.RAMADAS

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :03/02/2010

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J
                      -------------------
                        W.P.(C).28767/2009
                      --------------------
             Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010

                            JUDGMENT

1. An application made by the petitioner for a building permit

was rejected by Ext.P4 order on the ground that the area is

covered by a Town Planning Scheme. Against the said order,

petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal resulting in Ext.P5

order, by which the Municipality was directed to reconsider the

matter. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is

filed.

2. It is now brought to my notice that during the pendency of

this matter, at the instance of the Municipality itself, the Scheme

has been revised by the Government. Therefore, pursuant to the

directions of the Tribunal as contained in Ext.P5 order and in

view of the modification that the Scheme has undergone, the

application of the petitioner is liable to be reconsidered.

3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the

2nd respondent to reconsider the application made by the

W.P.(C).28767/09
2

petitioner for issuance of a building permit, in the light of the

Scheme as revised. This shall be done as expeditiously as

possible, as any rate, within eight weeks of receipt of a copy of

this judgment.

ANTONY DOMINIC,
Judge

mrcs