High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
M. GEORGE ABRAHAM v. CHIEF TOWN PLANNER - WP(C) No. 6731 of 2007(B)  RD-KL 6194 (26 March 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 6731 of 2007(B)
1. M. GEORGE ABRAHAM,
1. CHIEF TOWN PLANNER,
2. SECRETARY, THIRUVALLA MUNICIPALITY,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.HARIDAS
For Respondent :SRI.JACOB MATHEW MANALIL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J.W.P.(C)NO. 6731 of 2007 Dated this 26th day of March, 2007
Heard Sri.P.Haridas, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.T.B.Ramani, the learned Government Pleader and Sri.Jacob Mathew Manalil, the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality. The learned Government Pleader submits that she has been directed by the Chief Town Planner to inform this court that the file referred to in Ext.P2 is not presently available before the Chief Town Planner. Sri.Haridas would now refer to Rule 5 (8) of the Municipality Building Rules and submit that the Chief Town Planner's approval is not mandatory, but what is necessary is only that the application of the petitioner should be forwarded to the Chief Town Planner or the District Town Planner, as the case may be, with the remarks of the Municipality. Counsel submits that in view of Ext.P3, wherein the Municipality has certified that property of the petitioner is not notified for DTP scheme, the approval of the Town Planner will WPC No.6731/2007 2 not be necessary at all. Smt.Ramani, the learned Government Pleader refutes the above submissions by referring to Rule 27 (ix) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, which provides that in the case of development permits approval of the Chief Town Planer will be necessary for land exceeding 0.5 hectares.
2. Sri.Jacob Mathew Manalil, the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality submits that since what has been applied for by the petitioner is a development permit, rule 27 (ix) applies. Ext.P2 is dated 17.11.1999. May be the petitioner has an explanation to offer as to why he has approached this court only now. But the Chief Town Planner says that the file referred to in Ext.P2 is missing. Therefore, I do not think that this court will be justified in issuing specific direction in favour of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition issuing the following directions: The petitioner will ensure that the 2nd respondent will forwards to the first respondent all the papers which are necessary for enabling the first respondent to grant approval to the petitioner's application for development permit. The WPC No.6731/2007 3 petitioner on his part will produce before the Municipality whatever additional documents were called for by the Chief Town Planner so that the Municipality can forward those documents also. If the first respondent receives application and related papers forwarded to him by the 2nd respondent, the first respondent will pass appropriate orders on the application at the earliest and at any rate within six weeks of receiving the application and other related papers forwarded by the 2nd respondent. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE Judge dpk
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.