← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(C)/36027/2015disposed of

Vinod Nair v. Kozhikode Municipal Corporation

2015-12-14Honourable Mr.Justice V.Chitambaresh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 36027 of 2015 (C) ---------------------------- PETITIONERS:

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

1. VINOD NAIR, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.G.KARUNAKARAN NAIR, 29/2135, SAISWARA, PATTERY JN., MAVOOR ROAD, KUTHIRAVATTOM P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 016.

2. B.RAJALAKSHMI, AGED 59 YEARS, D/O.K.T.RAMAKRISHNA RAJA, 29/2135, SAISWARA, PATTERY JN., MAVOOR ROAD, KUTHIRAVATTOM P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 016.

BY ADV. SRI.FRANCO T.J.

RESPONDENTS:

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

1. KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BEACH ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 032.

2. SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BEACH ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673 032.

BY ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 36027 of 2015 (C) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 :

TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DT 8-6-2015 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KASABA.

EXHIBIT P2 :

TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DT 8-6-2015 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KASABA. EXHIBIT P3 :

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 17-11-2015 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.

EXHIBIT P4 :

TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 2-11-2015 IN WPC.31684/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE.

V. CHITAMBARESH, J --------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 36027 OF 2015 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December, 2015

JUDGMENT

Ext. P3 order declining building permit to the petitioners is obviously not preceded by a local inspection. I quash Ext.P3 order and direct the second respondent to pass orders anew within a period of two months from today.

2.

The petitioner undertakes to submit a revised plan in tune with the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. However, I hasten to add that the mere fact that the area is earmarked as residential as per the detailed town planning scheme (which has become obsolete) is not a reason enough to decline the building permit.

The writ petition is disposed of.

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE DCS