Philip Mathew v. The State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2015/1ST MAGHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 1923 of 2015 (M) PETITIONER(S):
---------------------- PHILIP MATHEW, AGED 57 YEARS S/O.MATHEWS POTHEN, NO.II, NEPTUNE COUNTY, PANDARACHIRA ROAD, CHILAVANNOOR, KOCHI.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN SMT.S.INDU RESPONDENT(S):
------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, KOCHI-682011.
3. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, CORPORATION OFFICE, KOCHI-682011.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SANJEETHA K.A.
R2 & 3 BY SRI.P.K.SOYUZ,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
WP(C).No. 1923 of 2015 (M) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT P1 :
TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT DATED 26-11-2014.
EXT P2 :
TRUE COPY OF THE CASE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM CORPORATION OF COCHIN EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF P1 APPLICATION.
EXT P3 :
TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED SCRUTINY REPORT DATED 13-11-2014. EXT P4 :
TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09-12-2014 AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXT P5 :
TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05-01-2015 OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXT P6, P6(A) TO P6(B): TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING THE NATURE AND LIE OF PETITONER'S PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL.
/ TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
W.P.(c) No. 1923 of 2015 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2015
JUDGMENT
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.
2. Consequently, the third 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.
It is however made clear that the objections of respondent corporation concerning other issues set out in Exhibit P4 shall be complied with by the petitioner. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-