Partly allowed

Srajudheen v. Perinthalmanna Municipality

Kerala HC6 Feb 2015WP(C)/2431/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge bench applied the ratio from Praveen K. case to dispose of this petition by quashing an order passed by the Municipality and directing afresh consideration of a building permission application.

What did the court decide?

Exhibit P3 quashed; Respondent 2 directed to consider building permission application afresh, refer to District Town Planner, and pass orders within six weeks.

Srajudheen Vs Perinthalmanna Municipality — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/17TH MAGHA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 2431 of 2015 (D)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. SRAJUDHEEN, S/O.VEERAN, 'KADEEJA MANZIL', THIRUNARAYAPURAM, P.O.PULAMANTHOL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 323.

¶8

2. SULAIKA,W/O.SRAJUDHEEN, 'KADEEJA MANZIL', THIRUNARAYANAPURAM, P.O.PULAMANTHOL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 323.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY, PERINTHALMANNA,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-679 322. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

2. THE SECRETARY, PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 322.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

sts

¶16

WP(C).No. 2431 of 2015 (D)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PERINTHALMANNA VILLAGE OFFICER IN FAVOUR OF THE IST PETITIONER DATED 6.11.2013
EXT.P1(A)	ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P1
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PERINTHALMANNA VILLAGE OFFICER IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 6.11.2013
EXT.P2(A)	ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P2
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT.P3(A)	ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P3.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶25

W.P.(c) No. 2431 of 2015

¶26

Dated this the 06^th day of February, 2015

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

In the light of the ratio laid down in Praveen K. v. Land

¶29

Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and

¶30

others [2010 (2) KHC 499], the present writ petition is also disposed of on the same lines, applying the ratio laid down by the learned Division Bench in the said decision, thereby quashing Exhibit P3.

¶31

Consequently, the second respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for building permission afresh, if necessary, by referring the matter to the District Town Planner, and thereafter pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶32

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

¶33

DMR/-

Srajudheen v. Perinthalmanna Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srajudheen v. Perinthalmanna Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Raveendran Vs Varghese K.Daniel

Sabu, S/O.Sankaran Vs the Excise Commissioner

Rajeevgandhi Sudhajala Vs the Vathikudy Grama Panchayath

Joy, S/O.Pathrose Vs State of Kerala

Kunhimuhammed Haji P Vs the Malappuram Municipality

P.P.Pradeep Kumar Vs Excise Commissioner