High Court Kerala High Court

T.V.Gopalakrishnan vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its on 9 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
T.V.Gopalakrishnan vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its on 9 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 16299 of 2007(M)


1. T.V.GOPALAKRISHNAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
                       ...       Respondent

2. CORPORATION OF CALICUT REPRESENTED BY

3. SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF CALICUT,

4. CHIEF TOWN PLANNER,

5. REGIONAL TOWN PLANNER, WEST HILL,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,SC,KOZHIKODE CORP

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :09/06/2008

 O R D E R
                          ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

                         ===============
                     W.P.(C) NO. 16299 OF 2007 M
                    ====================

                  Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008

                              J U D G M E N T

The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6. By this order,

an application made by the petitioner for a building permit has been

returned, pointing out as many as ten defects. Though nine of the defects

are curable by the petitioner, one of the defects pointed out is that the

permit is sought in respect of an area which has been earmarked as

residential in terms of the approved Town Planning Scheme.

2. Petitioner contends that on the strength of the exemptions

granted, several commercial complexes have already come up in the area

and therefore, if he alone is not permitted to undertake construction, that

will be discriminatory. It is contended that this area has now developed

into a commercial area and therefore, it is unrealistic to reject the permit

on the basis that it is a residential area. Counsel also makes reference to

the photographs produced in the writ petition to bring home this point.

3. Yet another point that is raised by the counsel for the

petitioner is that a proposal for modifying the scheme, is under the

consideration of the Government and therefore for that reason also it is

unfair to decline the building permit to him.

WPC 16299/07
:2 :

4. I have heard the counsel for the Corporation and also the

learned Government Pleader.

5. Fact remains that as at present, there is an approved Town

Planning Scheme and in terms of which the area in question has come under

the residential zone. This court has already held in the judgment in OP

No.8740/97 that the Town Planning Act confers no power on the

Government to tamper with the approved development scheme. Therefore,

so long as the Town Planning Scheme is in vogue, consideration of

application for building permit can only be in terms thereof.

6. If that be so, the defects pointed out in Ext.P6 that the area in

question is a residential one is liable to he upheld. However, taking into

account the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

a proposal for modification of the Town Planning Scheme is pending

consideration of the Government, I direct that in the event there is any

such modification carried out to the Town Planning Scheme, it will be open

to the petitioner to pursue his application afresh.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
Rp