This court set aside an order refusing concurrence for an LPG godown permit, directing the Town Planning Department to reconsider the proposal and process the application within one month, citing the absence of a notified Town Planning Scheme.
Exhibit P8 order set aside; direction to second respondent to reconsider and process 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 DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/3RD CHAITHRA, 1937
WP(C).No. 4759 of 2015 (T)
PETITIONER:
DILEEP V. IDATHALA, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O VARGHESE, IDATHALA HOUSE, KUTTAMPUZHA PO., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA.
BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE SECRETARY,
2. CHIEF TOWN PLANNER,
3. DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER,
4. SECRETARY,
5. CHIEF AREA MANAGER, INDANE,
R1 TO R3 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA R4 BY ADV. SRI.AZAD BABU, SC, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY R5 BY SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 4759 of 2015 (T)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
mbr/
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
W.P.(c) No. 4759 of 2015
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2015
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, as well as the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition
at the admission stage itself.
petitioner's property, where go down is proposed to be constructed, is covered by zoning regulations of District
W.P.(c) No. 4759 of 2015
2
Town Planning, Alappuzha. Consequently, the fourth respondent could not further process the petitioner's application. Assailing Exhibit P8 order of the second respondent, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
for the petitioner that unless the Town Planning Scheme is notified in the manner known to law, no right in presenti of the petitioner can be interdicted based on a future course of events. According to him, Exhibit P8 cannot be sustained, because it does not have any statutory basis.
W.P.(c) No. 4759 of 2015
3
W.P.(c) No. 4759 of 2015
4
petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, as well as the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, this Court hereby sets aside Exhibit P8 with a consequential direction to the second respondent to re-consider the proposal forwarded by the fourth respondent in the light of the fact that there is no notified Town Planning Scheme and further process petitioner's application, keeping in view Exhibit P6 consent deed and also Exhibit P9 judgment and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE
DMR/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Town Planning Authority can refuse a building permit based on zoning regulations when no Town Planning Scheme has been notified.
Whether the consent of neighboring residents is required before granting a building permit for an LPG storage godown.
Whether the order refusing concurrence is sustainable in the absence of a notified Town Planning Scheme.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dileep V. Idathala
The Secretary, Department of Urban Affairs
Chief Town Planner
District Town Planner
Secretary, Alappuzha Municipality
Chief Area Manager, Indane
Dama Seshadri Naidu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
