JUDGMENT

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

The appeal is preferred by the Changanacherry Municipality, the Secretary and the Municipal Engineer, who are respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition, challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 26.11.2019, whereby the following directions are issued:

5. In the afore perspective and taking note of the specific circumstances presented in this case, I order this writ petition and leave liberty to the petitioner to make a purchase notice under Section 67 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act before the Municipality; and if this is done within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the competent Authority of the Municipality will consider the same and issue appropriate orders thereon, within the statutory period fixed under the Act and will communicate the resultant order to the petitioner It goes without saying that if the Municipality either rejects the purchase notice or does not answer it within the statutory period, then the Secretary of the Municipality will be obligated to reconsider the petitioner’s application for building permit dated 01.10.2014, de hors the provisions of the Master Plan/Detailed Town Planning Scheme and issue appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date on which the statutory period for consideration of the petitioner’s notice, under Section 67 of the Act, expires.”

2. The basic material facts for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:

The writ petitioner is an owner of a plot adjoining the Alappuzha-

Changanassery road, who filed an application dated 01.10.2014 before the Secretary of the Municipality seeking to issue a building permit for the construction of a commercial building in his property. The said application was rejected as per Ext. P1 communication dated 28.10.2017 by the Municipal Engineer, the third appellant, pointing out certain defects in the application submitted. According to the writ petitioner, he cured those defects and resubmitted the application before the Secretary of the Municipality. The Secretary of the Municipality forwarded the application to the District Town Planner, Kottayam, who is the second respondent in the appeal and the 4th respondent in the writ petition.

3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that there was no requirement for referring the application to the District Town Planner, since the direction sought for by the writ petitioner has no consequence so as to secure any permission from the District Town Planner. Anyhow, the District Town Planner addressed Ext. P2 communication dated 21.03.2015 to the Secretary of the Municipality, in which the Town Planner has pointed out a development plan for Changanassery, and referring to the said plan informed the Secretary that a portion of the plot of land belonging to the petitioner would fall within Park and Open Space zone and another portion comes within the residential zone. That apart, it is stated that a proposed road having access from Alappuzha-Changanassery road also passes through the writ petitioner's plot of land in accordance with the plan and thereupon, the petitioner has sought certain information under the Right to Information Act in regard to the development plan.

4. According to the petitioner, on inspection of the said plan secured as per the Right to Information Act by the experts, it was found that the plan contained a large number of mistakes and the said mistakes were pointed out by the writ petitioner to the Municipal authorities. Anyhow, the Municipal Engineer has rejected the application for building permit submitted by the writ petitioner as per Ext. P5 order dated 09.07.2015, stating that a road having a width of 12 meter is proposed to be constructed through the property in question of the writ petitioner and therefore, permit cannot be granted as is sought for by the writ petitioner.

5. The learned single Judge, after assimilating the factual