Important Points:
Application submitted by the petitioner was having deficiencies, liable to be corrected, and unless and until a defect free application is submitted, the statutory authority is not duty bound to consider the same.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P7 communication issued by the 2nd respondent, i.e., the Corporation of Kochi, dated 24.03.2010, informing the petitioner that the application submitted by the petitioner seeking issuance of the building permit cannot be considered in view of G.O.(Ms) No.249/09 dated 16.12.2009, modifying the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, and directing the petitioner to submit a fresh plan, taking into account the amendment to the Rules. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

2. Petitioner is the owner in possession of 74.845 cents of land on the side of Kaloor-Perandoor Road, within the limits of the Corporation of Kochi. Petitioner submitted an application for construction of a multi-storied building on entering into a Memorandum of Understanding with a builder, on 07.05.2008. According to the petitioner, without considering the application submitted by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent, i.e., the Secretary of the Corporation insisted for free surrender of land on the main road side for widening the road. On 03.12.2008, a notice was issued, directing the petitioner to cure two defects and the petitioner has carried out the same. Petitioner has also submitted a plan by providing land for development of the road in the sketch. Again on 12.01.2009, a notice was issued, pointing out some defects, which were also rectified to the satisfaction of the authorities. However, no action was taken to grant licence. At last, after implementing the amended Rules, the 4th respondent issued a notice directing the petitioner to submit a fresh plan in accordance with the amended Rules to Rules, 1999. It is also the case of the petitioner that, the permitted FAR before amendment was 2.5 without fine. After amendment also the permitted FAR is 2.5, but with additional fee after the permitted FAR 2.0, and thereupon, demanded the petitioner to re-submit the plan in accordance with the amended Rules.

3. A statement and additional statement are filed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents, refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. Among other contentions, it is stated that, petitioner did not submit the structural stability certificate, NOC from Pollution Control Board and the Fire Service Department, which was intimated to the petitioner on 15.05.2008 itself. The respondents while scrutinizing the application, found that though it comes under residential zone, the application cannot be entertained as per the provisions of Rule 30(3) of the Rules, 1999. It was thereupon, petitioner was asked to file a fresh application establishing that it is suitable for carrying out construction of a commercial building.

4. That apart, it is stated that, petitioner has given Ext.P3 consent that he is willing to surrender the above area for the development of Perandoor canal road. However, requisite forms are not submitted. Therefore, the Corporation cannot treat the willingness projected by the petitioner as free surrender of land. Thereafter, petitioner produced initial Fire NOC. But, he has not rectified the revised plan as suggested by the respondents as per Exts.P4 and P6 notices, and thereby it has become difficult for the Corporation to approve the application and plan submitted by the petitioner.

5. An additional statement is also filed by respondents 2 and 3, stating that, the delay in processing the application is due to laches on the part of the petitioner, since the revised plan was submitted by the petitioner belatedly. As per Ext.P5, petitioner was informed of the defects noted in the plan submitted by him. According to the said respondents, petitioner has consciously omitted to mention the date on which he submitted the revised plan for consideration. Actually, petitioner has submitted the revised plan only on 15.12.2009 for approval. In the meanwhile, while the application was being processed, amendments were brought as