Kunjiaysumma vs The Government Of Kerala on 20 November, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 30952 of 2008(I)


1. KUNJIAYSUMMA, W/O. A.T. SAID MOHAMMED,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. GURUVAYOOR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED

                For Petitioner  :SRI.KRISHNAKUMAR MANGOT

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :20/11/2008

 O R D E R
                         S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

                  ==================

                   W.P(C).No.30952 of 2008

                  ==================

           Dated this the 20th day of November, 2008

                         J U D G M E N T

The petitioner approached this Court with a grievance that

in spite of Ext.P9 judgment, the Municipality has, by Ext.P10

order, rejected the application filed by the petitioner for a

building permit on the ground that the DTP scheme in force

would be violated in respect of which the Government has no

power to grant individual exemption and only the scheme as a

whole can be amended or varied as held by this Court. The

petitioner’s contention is that, as held in Ext.P9 judgment, the

judgment of this Court relied upon by the Municipality applies

only prospectively and therefore, on that ground the petitioner’s

application for building permit cannot be rejected, exemption

having been given to the petitioner prior to that judgment.

2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality

submits that Ext.P9 judgment has been set aside by the Division

Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2201/2008 today. This is not

disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. That being so, the

petitioner cannot now claim building permit on the basis of the

w.p.c.30952/08 2

individual exemption granted to the petitioner by the

Government. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the petitioner has got a further case that the

Government can vary the DTP scheme itself and seeks

reservation of the petitioner’s right to seek the same.

3. In the above circumstances I do not think that for the

present Ext.P10 can be interfered with. It would be open to the

petitioner to approach the Government for cancellation or

variation of the DTP Scheme itself for which this judgment shall

not be a bar and if the petitioner succeeds, it would be open to

the petitioner to apply afresh notwithstanding Ext.P10.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

sdk+                                         S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE


             ///True copy///




                             P.A. to Judge

w.p.c.30952/08    3