Abraham P.S v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/8TH ASWINA, 1937 WP(C).No. 25137 of 2015 (N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER:
-------------------------- ABRAHAM P.S., AGED 60 YEARS S/O.DEVASIA, RESIDING AT COMBONI VILLA PULLUKALA PUTHENPURAYIL, 20/921, THELLAKOM ETTUMANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM-686631.
BY ADVS.SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH SRI.RILGIN V.GEORGE SRI.M.ANEESH RESPONDENTS:
----------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE SECRETARY ETTUMANOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ETTUMANOOR P.O.
KOTTAYAM-686631.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.P. PADMALAYAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 25137 of 2015 (N) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1 :
TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3265/2000 DT.29-7-2000 OF THE ETTUMANUR SRO.
P2 :
TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DT.23-6-2015. P3 :
TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DT.29-8-2009 ISSUED BY R2. P4 :
TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR RENEWAL DT.23-7-2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R2.
P5 :
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A1-10710/15 DT.4-8-2015 ISSUED BY R2. P6 :
TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DT.6-8-2015 ISSUED BY THE PEROOR VILLAGE OFFICE.
P7 :
TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONERS' ENTIRE PROPERTY COMPRISED IN RE.SY.NO.182/1 AND 182/6. P8 :
TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.15-3-2012 IN WPC 4682/2012 ON THE FILES OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:- NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE
V.CHITAMBARESH,J.
------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 25137 of 2015 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2015
JUDGMENT
Only the renewal of existing building permit is sought. The petitioner contends that the construction is midway. It is the case of the petitioner that no site inspection was done. Ext. P5 order rejecting the application for building permit is assigned.
2.
I do feel that there is a total non-application of mind. The matter requires a re-look at the hands of the Panchayat. I quash Ext.P5 order for the purpose. The second respondent shall pass orders anew after hearing the petitioner. The same shall be done within a period of one month.
The writ petition is disposed of.
V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE