IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30222 of 2009(W)
1. V.O.PAULOSE, AGED 52 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
3. THE SECRETARY, CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY,
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJIT
For Respondent :SRI.THOMAS ANTONY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :06/01/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.30222 of 2009 (W)
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 6th day of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Challenge in the writ petition is against Exts.P4 & P5. The
petitioner made an application to the 3rd respondent for a building
permit. That was rejected by Ext.P4 on the ground that by Ext.P5
letter of the 1st respondent, it has been directed to issue building
permit only by freezing construction activities within the private
boundary for 7.50m. on either side from the new 45m. ROW, and
maintaining the existing building line rules of the State Government.
It is challenging Exts.P4 & P5, this writ petition is filed.,
2. Dealing with similar cases, in the judgment in Peer
Mohammed v. Chirakandam Grama Panchayat (2008(3) KLT 300)
this Court has held that fixation of building line and control line are
to be done in terms of Section 18 of the Highway Protection Act, by
issuing a notification, which has to be published in the Official
Gazette and news papers.
In this case, Ext.P5 is only a communication issued by the 1st
WP(C) No.30222/2009
-2-
respondent to the 3rd respondent, which does not answer the
requirement of Section 18 of the Act. For that reason, Exts.P4 & P5
are to be set aside and I do so. The 3rd respondent is directed to
reconsider the application made by the petitioner for building
permit in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders thereon
as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg