IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10853 of 2009(B)
1. MEETHALAPRATH LAKSHMANAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ELAYAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
... Respondent
2. ELAYAVOOR VILLAGE PANCHAYATH
3. KONIPORIYAN RAGHAVAN,S/O.KUNHAMBU,
For Petitioner :SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA)
For Respondent :SRI.C.KRISHNAN(KANNUR)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :29/05/2009
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.10853 OF 2009
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of May, 2009
JUDGMENT
1.The petitioner is an unfortunate landlord, who wanted to re-
construct a building belonging to him. He obtained an order of
eviction under Act 2 of 1965. However, when he applied for
building permit, respondents 1 and 2 refused to issue such
permit on the premise that unless eviction has been effected,
permit cannot be issued without the written consent of the
tenant. I state these facts because this is nothing but the peak
of administrative absurdity. Such decision having come out at
the hands of a special grade secretary is intriguing. The
issuance of permit to re-construct a building is not made
dependent on the consent of the occupier either under the
provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act or under the
Panchayat Raj Act or under the Kerala Municipal Building
Rules or any other law for the time being in force. No such
provision is pointed out on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The
stand of respondents 1 and 2 therefore fails.
WPC.10853/09
Page numbers
2.A counter affidavit is filed by respondents 1 and 2 that they
were under the “bonafide” belief that consent of the tenant is
necessary for permit to re-construct a building. The word
“bonafide” denotes something coupled with rationality.
Perverse and irrational thinking can never be placed under the
carpet of bonafides. I am satisfied that the impugned action
results in manifest miscarriage of justice.
3.In the result, the writ petition is allowed directing that the
building permit applied for by the petitioner shall be issued
within a fortnight from now, without insisting for any consent
letter of the tenant, if the application is otherwise in order. I
am inclined to impose an order of exemplary costs in favour of
the petitioner. However, taking into consideration that the
third respondent does not appear and the quality of public
service in Kerala requires a stock assessment by the higher
ups in the administration of the Government, I desist from
imposing any order of costs.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.
kkb.1/6.