IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN TH THURSDAY, THE 9 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 18TH BHADRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 18051 OF 2021 PETITIONER:

ABDUL LATHEEF ABOOBACKAR, AGED 48 YEARS S/O.ABUBACKER, VALIYAKATH, MAMBARAMBATH HOUSE, THOYAKKAVU, THRISSUR, PIN:680510, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER FASAL RAHMAN R.V., S/O R.V.ABDULLAKUTY, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, PALUVAI PO, THRISSUR-680522 BY ADVS.

JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY ANIL GEORGE RESPONDENTS:

1 THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR, 680001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

2 THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THRISSUR-680001 SRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:

“(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2^nd respondent to consider the renewal application and pass orders on the basis of revised plan submitted by the petitioner.

(ii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, calling for Exhibit P8 notice and quash the same.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, who is the owner of 18.42 Ares of property in Sy.No.736/P of Ayyanthole Village under the jurisdiction of the 1^st respondent, had submitted an application for Building permit for the construction of an apartment complex with 18 floors. It is submitted that this Court, by Ext.P1 judgment, had directed the respondents to consider the application submitted by the petitioner. Ext.P4 Building permit was issued to the petitioner on 28.03.2017. However, he could not construct and complete the building within the validity of the permit. He, therefore, submitted an application as evidenced by Ext.P5 for renewal of the permit. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted a revised plan limiting the number of floors from 18 to 11 and resultantly limiting the plinth area of the building. The said revised plan was submitted on 27.03.2021 and the petitioner seeks a consideration of the application for renewal in accordance with the revised plan. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the revised plan has been submitted for a residential apartment complex itself and that as such, there is no change of occupancy and the application for renewal has to be considered along with the revised plan.

4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the telephonic instructions are to the effect that there is a change of occupancy involved and that the revised plan is for a storage occupancy.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner immediately submits that there is no change of occupancy and that the revised plan is specifically for a multi-storied residential building.

6. Having considered the contentions advanced, I am of the opinion that since the petitioner had submitted an application for amendment of the building permit as per Ext.P5 and since it is specifically submitted by the learned counsel that the revised plan is also for an apartment complex and for residential occupancy and the revision is only to the effect of reducing the number of floors in the building and the resultant plinth area, I am of the opinion that the application is liable to be considered in accordance with law. In case there is no change in occupancy in the revised plan submitted by the petitioner, then the application for renewal of Building permit is to be considered in accordance with the revised plan submitted by the petitioner. However, if the occupancy of the building is changed, then the application may have to be considered as a fresh application for Building permit.

7. In the above view o