The petitioner challenged the rejection of a building permit application. The court held that the appropriate remedy was filing an appeal against the rejection, not seeking reconsideration via representation. The petition was dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed; no direction given for reconsideration of representation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2012/2ND JYAISHTA 1934
WP(C).No. 1883 of 2012 (I)
PETITIONER:
JAFNA V.P. D/O.HYDERALI HAJI, 'FIROZE MANZIL', ERNAD TALUK, NARUKARA AMSOM, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM.676 122.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.V.SACHIDANANDAN SRI.JAYKAR.K.S. SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE SMT.M.RAMYA JAYAKAR
RESPONDENTS:
1. SECRETARY MANJERI MUNICIPALITY, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.676121.
2. VILLAGE OFFICER NARUKARA VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM.676 034.
3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, 5TH FLOOR, SECRETARIAT ANNEXE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.MOHAMMED SHAFI BY SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL,SC,PONNANI MUNCIPALITY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MG
WP(C).No. 1883 of 2012 (I)
APPENDIX
EXT.P1:COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.12.2011. EXT.P2:COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 23.02.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
EXT.P3:COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 22.02.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
MG
ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 1883 OF 2012
===================
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2012
J U D G M E N T
An application made by the petitioner for building permit was rejected by the respondent as per Ext.P2. Petitioner thereupon filed Ext.P1 representation seeking a reconsideration of Ext.P2 and in this writ petition what is sought for is a direction for its consideration.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner either to seek her appellate remedies or to file a fresh application for building permit.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a recourse for reconsideration of a rejected building permit application was legally available or if an appeal was the proper remedy.
JAFNA V.P.
SECRETARY MANJERI MUNICIPALITY
STATE OF KERALA
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
