High Court of KeralaWP(C)/17497/2014disposed of

Thachangodan Hamza Haji v. District Town Planner

2015-01-23Honourable Mr. Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2015/3RD MAGHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 17497 of 2014 (J) PETITIONER(S):

-----------------------

1. THACHANGODAN HAMZA HAJI, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O THACHANGODAN, MUHAMMED HAJI, PANDALLUR AMSOM, DESOM, ERNAD TLAUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

2. ABDUL NASAR, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O MANCHIRI MOIDEENKUTTY KURIKKAL, PAYYANAD AMSOM DESOM, MANJERI VIA, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S):

--------------------------

1. DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, MALAPPURAM - 676 121.

2. MANJERI MUNICIPALITY, RERPESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MANJERI MUNICIPALITY, MANJERI - 676121.

R2 BY SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: msv/

WP(C).No. 17497 of 2014 (J) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER . EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION NO E3-15061/13 DATED 08-11-2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED PLAN SUBMITTED MARKING THE ROAD\ WIDENING PROPOSED AS PER THE D.T.P SCHEME.

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION/ NOTICE NO E3 15061/13 DATED 05-12-2013 TO THE PETITIONER.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

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

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

W.P.(c) No. 17497 of 2014 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2015

JUDGMENT

In the light of the ratio laid down in Raju S. Jethmalani and Others v. State of Maharashtra and others [2005 (11) SCC 222], 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 and thereby quashing Exhibit P4. 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 first respondent, 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/-