IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16883 of 2009(E)
1. BAIJU MOL, AGED 36 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KOTAKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, KOTAKARA P.O.,
3. SUBRAMANYANAM, AGED 65 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.G.SURESH
For Respondent :SRI.T.N.MANOJ
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :30/01/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
------------------
WP(C) No. 16883 of 2009
--------------------------
Dated, this the 30th day of January, 2010
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner submits that she made Ext.P3 application for a
building permit. On its receipt, Panchayat issued Ext.P8
communication informing the petitioner that in order to consider
the application, petitioner should produce documents evidencing
that she has an access to the site in question. Petitioner’s case is
that on receipt of Ext.P8, she submitted Ext.P4 series of documents
whereby, according to him, the neighbouring landlords have
consented to provide access to the site. It is stated that even after
production of Ext.P4 series, Secretary has not considered Ext.P3
application aggrieved by which, the writ petition is filed.
2. Although it is the case of the resondents that Ext.P8 reflects
consideration of the application and that the petitioner has not
produced title deed of the area through which he claims access to
the site, considering the materials on record, I am satisfied that the
Secretary has not considered Ext.P3 in the light of Ext.P4 series of
documents produced by the petitioner.
W.P.(C).16883/09
2
3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st
respondent to consider Ext.P3 application in the light of Ext.P4
series of documents produced by the petitioner. Orders shall be
passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks
of production of a copy of this judgment, with notice to the
petitioner.
ANTONY DOMINIC,
Judge
mrcs