IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 353 of 2009()
1. NAZEERA BANU, KOORIMANNIL VALIYAPURAM
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE MANJERI MUNICIPALITY,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.P.GOPAKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :16/02/2009
O R D E R
J.B. KOSHY, Ag.C.J. &
V.GIRI, J.
-------------------------
W.A.No.353 of 2009
-------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009.
JUDGMENT
V.Giri, J.
The appellant/petitioner, having purchased an
extent of 4.65 Ares of property, filed an application
before the respondent for permission under the Kerala
Municipal Building Rules, to construct a residential
building. By Ext.P4 order dated 29.10.2008, the
respondent rejected the application stating that the
construction, if permitted. will affect the construction of
the road and the zonal regulations relating to DTP
Scheme. This order was challenged in the writ petition.
2. It was, inter alia, contended that similar
orders, by which applications were rejected, were set
aside by another learned single Judge as per Exts.P5 and
P6 judgments, wherein a direction was issued to consider
the applications for permit, uninfluenced by the
earmarking for implementation of the DTP scheme.
3. The learned Judge, in this case, declined to
consider the contentions on merits finding that Ext.P4
order passed by the Municipality is appealable before the
W.A.No.353 of 2009
:: 2 ::
Tribunal for Local Self-Government Institutions. The
petitioner was, therefore, relegated to the appellate
remedy. This has been challenged in this writ appeal.
4. We heard learned counsel for the appellant.
5. The judgment passed by the learned single
Judge impugned in this case does not suffer from any
error. It cannot be disputed that the order, Ext.P4, is
appealable under the Municipalities Act. It also cannot be
disputed that there is a competent body, the Tribunal for
Local Self-Government Institutions, which is competent to
entertain an appeal and pass such orders as could be
passed by the original authority itself. The directions
issued in Exts.P5 and P6 orders, no doubt, will have a
persuasive value before the Tribunal. But, unless we are
in a position to find that the view taken by the learned
Judge, regarding the existence of an alternate remedy by
way of appeal is wrong, we would not consider it
appropriate to interfere with the view taken by the
learned single Judge.
W.A.No.353 of 2009
:: 3 ::
In these circumstances, finding that the appeal
is bereft of merit, the same is dismissed, obviously,
without prejudice to the right of the appellant to
approach the appellate authority, in relation to Ext.P4
order.
Sd/-
(J.B. KOSHY)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge