High Court of KeralaWP(C)/23871/2015disposed of

Mohammed Ashraf v. Perinthalmanna Municipality

2015-08-13Honourable Mr. Justice A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/22ND SRAVANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 23871 of 2015 (H) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:

----------- MOHAMMED ASHRAF, AGED 49 YEARS KARUVATHU, VETTATHUR, PERINTHALMANNA MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS:

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

1. PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - 679 322.

2. SECRETARY PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY - 679 322.

R BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 23871 of 2015 (H) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- P1 - A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. K.DIS 1612/2004/M DT. 28.2.2004 ISSUED BY REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA. P2 - A TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR PERMIT.

P3 - A TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT NO. BA- 204/12-13 DT. 30.11.12. P4 - A TRUE COPY OF REVISED BUILDING APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

P5 - A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED BUILDING PLAN PRODUCED ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL ---------------------- TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE Scl.

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.23871 of 2015 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2015.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved by the inordinate delay in considering Ext.P4 application submitted by the petitioner for revised building permit.

The petitioner alleges that he had made Ext.P2 application for building permit, which was granted as per Ext.P3. Thereafter he made Ext.P4 revised building application with increased plinth area. However, the second respondent has not yet passed any orders on Ext.P4 application till date. Such inordinate delay in considering Ext.P4 revised application is illegal and unreasonable; it is alleged. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court. 3.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent municipality in the matter.

The learned standing counsel for the respondent

W.P.(C) No.23871 of 2015 -2municipality on instructions submitted that the inspection has already been ordered.

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent municipality to consider Ext.P4 and pass formal orders thereon within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE Scl.