Disposed

Anwar P.K. v. Thrissur Corporation

Kerala HC12 Mar 2015WP(C)/6837/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed regarding a delayed building permit application for residential flats was disposed of at the admission stage. The court directed the respondent corporation to expedite the application following the ratio of a prior judgment.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's application for a building permit within one month, following the ratio of a prior judgment.

Anwar P.K. Vs Thrissur Corporation — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/21ST PHALGUNA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 6837 of 2015 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ANWAR P.K, S/O.LATE KUNHIBAVA, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT POKKAKKILLATH HOUSE KUTTAMANGALAM, EDATHIRUTHY.P.O, THRISSUR-680703.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU

¶9

RESPONDENT

¶10

THRISSUR CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR-680001.

¶11

BY SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATION R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.N.HARIDAS

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

vmr.

¶14

WP(C).No. 6837 of 2015 (D)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)19638/2006 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 25.8.2006.

¶18

EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)1138/2011 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 17.2.2011.

¶19

EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND HIS BROTHER P.K.AYOOB DATED 20.01.2006.

¶20

EXT.P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P3.

¶21

EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION DATED 11.07.2014.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

vmr.

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶27

W.P.(c) No. 6837 of 2015

¶28

Dated this the 12^th day of March, 2015

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, 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.

¶31

Succinctly stated, the petitioner, being the co-owner of certain property in Chiyyaram Village of Thrissur District, submitted an application on 12.06.2014 to the respondent Corporation for building permit to construct a complex of residential flats. When it has not been considered expeditiously, the petitioner is said to have submitted Exhibit P4 representation. Ventilating his grievance that his application has not been considered despite Exhibit P2 judgment, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶32

W.P.(c) No. 6837 of 2015

¶33

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of Exhibit P2 judgment, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Chapter XI of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, because the petitioner has already surrendered certain extent of land in favour of the respondent Corporation.

¶35

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, on his part, has submitted that the respondent authorities will make every effort to process petitioner's application expeditiously.

¶36

In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, this Court, without adverting to the merits of the matter, disposes of the present writ petition with a direction to the respondent Corporation to consider petitioner's application in accordance with law, especially keeping in view the ratio laid down in Exhibit P2 judgment of this Court, 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

¶37

W.P.(c) No. 6837 of 2015

¶38

¶39

this judgment.

¶40

With the above observation, this writ petition is

¶41

disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶42

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

¶43

DMR/-

Anwar P.K. v. Thrissur Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anwar P.K. v. Thrissur Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syamaladevi N.G. Vs Neduvathur Grama Panchayath

Olam Agro India Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

Baburajan Vs the Excise Commissioner

M.Kanakambaran Vs the Thrikkakara Municipality

M/S.Kottukapilly Sand & Metal Private Limited, Palakkad Vs Kizhakkancherry Grama Panchayat

M/S.Macadam Granites Private Limited Vs Erimayoor Grama Panchayat