Quashed

Dileep Subhakaran v. Palakkad Municipality

Kerala HC17 Mar 2015WP(C)/7565/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order regarding building permission. Applying the ratio of cited decisions without detailed reasoning, the court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondent Municipality to reconsider the petitioner's application afresh within one month.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 10 February 2015 is quashed. The petitioner's application for building permission is to be considered afresh by the Municipality within one month.

Dileep Subhakaran Vs Palakkad Municipality — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/26TH PHALGUNA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 7565 of 2015 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

DILEEP SUBHAKARAN, S/O.SUBHAKARAN, AGED 47 YEARS, 'SOPANAM', PRESS CLUB ROAD, 34/971A, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶11

THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, PALAKKAD, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶12

THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT. OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU R2 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

APPENDIX IN WP(C).No. 7565 of 2015 (U)

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶17

EXT P1 : A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 13 AUGUST 2014 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALAKKAD VILLAGE-III.

¶18

EXT P2 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10 FEBRUARY 2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶19

EXT P2(a) : A TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT P2.

¶20

EXT P3 : A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2011(3) KHC 162 (DB) OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶21

EXT P4 : A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.11.2014 IN WPC NO.20056/2014.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.

¶23

/TRUE COPY/

¶24

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶25

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

¶26

W.P.(C)No.7565 of 2015 U

¶27

Dated this the 17^th day of March, 2015

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

In the light of the ratio laid down in Exhibits P3 and P4, the present writ petition is disposed of on the same lines applying the ratio laid down by this Court in the said decision, thereby quashing Exhibit P2.

¶30

Consequently, the respondent Municipality is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for building permission afresh, if necessary, by referring the matter to the second respondent, 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.

¶31

Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge

¶32

tkv

Dileep Subhakaran v. Palakkad Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dileep Subhakaran v. Palakkad 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

Layoni Vs Chalakudy Municipality

Thankamma M Vs Pallikkal Grama Panchayath

K.M.Anilkumar Vs the Thalassery Muncipality

Kanichai Hotels (P) Limited Vs the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

Sunil Kumar A.M Vs Thrissur Corporation

Abdul Azeez Vs Secretary Municipal Coporation,Kollam