Petitioner challenged refusal to convert residential building to non-residential use. Court held reliance on obsolete DTP Scheme violates Constitution. Writ allowed and order quashed.
Writ petition allowed; Ext.P6 quashed; Respondent directed to reconsider application within one month.
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 A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2015/15TH ASHADHA, 193
WP(C).No. 19523 of 2013 (M)
PETITIONER:
T.S.PATTABHIRAMAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.KALYAN SILKS, PALACE ROAD, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
SRI.P.S.APPU
SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.SANIL JOSE
RESPONDENTS:
1. THRISSUR CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR-680 001.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THRISSUR CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR-680 001.
3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30.10.2013 IN IA 14204/2013.
R1,2 BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN
SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS SRI.V.N.HARIDAS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
WP(C).No. 19523 of 2013 (M)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
NIL.
/ TRUE COPY /
P.S. TO JUDGE
PJ
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C) No.19523 of 2013
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of July, 2015
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by Ext.P6 order refusing permission to convert the
nature of use of the petitioner's premises to non-residential one by the respondents, the petitioner has come up before this Court.
WP(C)19523/13 -:2:-
of use of the building from residential to non-residential The request has been turned down by the corporation relying on a Detailed Town Planning (DTP) Scheme. According to the petitioner, the DTP Scheme was never put to operation. It is with this background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
have contended the property of the petitioner is situated in the area earmarked as residential zone as per the DTP Scheme. Therefore, the petitioner's request for change in occupancy from residential to commercial cannot be permitted. It was stated that only a small portion of the palace road comes within the DTP Scheme. It was further contended that the DTP Scheme and the Master Plan were brought into force by the government and any changes or amendments to the scheme or master plan could only be made by the Government. Therefore, they justified the stand taken in Ext.P6 order.
learned standing counsel for the respondent Municipality.
WP(C)19523/13 -:3:-
Raju S. Jethmalani v. State of Maharastra [(2005) 11 SCC 222] wherein it was held that refusing to grant permits relying on obsolete DTP schemes is a clear violation of the provisions of the Constitution.
Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P6 is quashed and the respondent corporation is directed to reconsider petitioner's
WP(C)19523/13
-:4:-
application for conversion of the nature of use from residential to nonresidential one, in the light of what has been stated above de hors Ext.P6 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE
krj
3 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioner is entitled to conversion of residential property to non-residential use despite DTP Scheme opposition.
Whether refusal based on obsolete DTP Scheme violates constitutional provisions.
Whether Ext.P6 order refusing conversion permission should be quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Padmini v. State of KeralaFollowed¶51
Padmini v. State of Kerala [1999 (3) KLT 465]
Raju S. Jethmalani v. State of MaharastraFollowed¶51
Raju S. Jethmalani v. State of Maharastra [(2005) 11 SCC 222] · Who else cites this
T.S. Pattabhiraman
Thrissur Corporation
The Executive Engineer, Thrissur Corporation
The State of Kerala
A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
