High Court of KeralaWP(C)/348/2015disposed of

Merly Joy v. Puthoor Grama Panchayath

2015-02-18Honourable Mr. Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/29TH MAGHA, 1936 WP(C).No.348 of 2015 (P) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER:

-------------------- MERLY JOY,W/O.JOY T.V.,THAZHATHAN HOUSE, KONIKKARA P.O.,THRISSUR.

BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS:

------------------------ 1.

THE PUTHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PUTHOOR P.O.,THRISSUR - 680 014, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

THE SECRETARY,PUTHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PUTHOOR P.O.,THRISSUR - 680 014.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.348 of 2015 (P) ----------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

------------------------------------ EXT.P-1:TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED DEED NO.4635/2005 DATED 14.11.2005. EXT.P-1(A):TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P-1. EXT.P-2:TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED DEED NO.4634/2005 DATED 14.11.2005. EXT.P-2(A):TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P-2. EXT.P-3:TRUE COPY OF LICENSE DATED 1.4.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXT.P-3(A):TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P-3. EXT.P-4:TRUE COPY OF PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXT.P-5:TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 23.11.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXT.P-5(A):TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P-5. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

NIL --------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE pk

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

--------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 348 of 2015 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2015

JUDGMENT

Despite the completion of service of notice, there is no representation for the respondents.

2. In the light of the ratio laid down in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner [2010 (2) KLT 617], the present writ petition is also disposed of on the same lines, applying the ratio laid down by the learned Division Bench in the said decision, thereby quashing Exhibit P5.

3. Consequently, the second respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for building permission afresh, if necessary, by referring the matter to the District Town Planner, and thereafter pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-