IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 12441 of 2009(A)
1. NAZEERA BANU, KOORIMANNIL VALIYAPURAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE MANJERI MUNICIPALITY, MANJERI,
... Respondent
2. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
For Petitioner :SRI.P.P.JACOB
For Respondent :SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :25/09/2009
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.12441 OF 2009
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2009
JUDGMENT
1.The petitioner applied for a building permit. That was refused
by the first respondent on grounds referable to a DTP scheme.
The petitioner moved this Court. He was relegated to
alternate statutory remedy. When the petitioner moved the
Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, it was held
that the appeal was beyond time and even beyond the period
that could be condoned. Hence, the petitioner challenges the
decision rejecting the building permit application on grounds
referable to the DTP scheme as also the decision of the
Tribunal for LSGI rejecting the appeal on ground of delay.
2.Having lost an earlier round before this Court on the ground
that the petitioner has alternate remedies, she stood confined
to seek relief before the Tribunal for LSGI. The appeal was
found to be beyond time and even beyond the period that could
WPC.12441/09
Page numbers
be condoned in terms of the rules. The rules and provisions
governing the period of limitation are not under attack in this
writ petition. Obviously therefore, the Tribunal cannot be
found fault with for having acted in terms of an existing statute
law, including existing rules. So long as the statutory
provisions governing alternate remedy, including statutory
rules exists, the challenge of the petitioner to the order of the
Tribunal fails. That having failed, the petitioner cannot be
permitted to challenge the order rejecting the application for
building permit since that will be by-passing the statutory
remedy which, not only been invoked but has been lost.
Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the
impugned order.
3.However, as of now, in the judgment issued today in W.P(C).
17413/09, this Court has held that the DTP scheme is
inoperative and oppressive. Hence, any application of the
petitioner for building permit, made de novo, will have to be
WPC.12441/09
Page numbers
considered under the changed circumstances. It is directed
that if the petitioner files an application for building permit
under the changed circumstances, the municipal authorities
will consider such application in accordance with law as it now
stands. This writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.
kkb.29/9.