A.Joy vs Corporation Of … on 5 August, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 28741 of 2009(K)


1. A.JOY, D/O.AGATHAMMA, STAR WILL,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY,

3. TOWN PLANNING OFFICER,

4. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,

5. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.V.ASOKAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :05/08/2010

 O R D E R
              THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
                    -------------------------------------------
                     W.P(C).No.28741 OF 2009
                    -------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 5th day of August, 2010


                             JUDGMENT

1.The petitioner applied for a building permit. Going by the

site plan, which is Ext.P2, the entire area has building, either

existing building of the Medical college Campus or other

buildings. Under such circumstances, it was inappropriate

for the Corporation to have issued Ext.P4 without considering

the ground realities and inviting the petitioner for a hearing

in that regard. Therefore, it is ordered that following Ext.P4,

the petitioner will appear before the Town Planning Officer of

the Trivandrum Corporation who will provide him an

opportunity of hearing and forward a report, if necessary, to

the competent superior authorities in the Corporation and

also respondent No.5, if the petitioner has to get an order of

exemption. The decisions of this Court in Padmini v. State

of Kerala [1999(3) KLT 465] and in Nazar P.K. v.

Malappuram Municipality [2009(3) KLT 35] stand to

WPC.28741/09
2

advise that though zoning is a matter that should regulate

construction activities, there cannot be an irrational

approach of refusing permit to one or a few when the whole

area have lot of buildings. Hence, without expressing

anything on merits, this writ petition is ordered directing that

further action in terms of this judgment will follow from the

Town Planner within a period of three months of production

of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will make

appearance before the Town Planning Officer with a copy of

this judgment and a copy of the writ petition so that the

matter will be expedited. The writ petition is ordered

accordingly.

Sd/
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.

kkb.19/08.