The Court emphasized fair consideration of building permit applications despite zoning restrictions and past violations of master plans.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction calling for the records resulting in Exhibit P9 communication, scrutinize and quash the same;

ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to the 4th respondent to consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner to reconsider the same and pass order within a specified time allowing the application taking note of the same lawfully;

iii. pass such other orders, interlocutory or otherwise, which are deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice;

iv. allow this Writ Petition with costs.

(SIC)

2. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P9 by which an application for building permit was rejected stating that the property in which the construction is to be made is agricultural zone.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality.

4. The Standing Counsel for the Municipality submitted that a counter affidavit is filed in this writ petition. But the fact remains that, this Court, in the judgment dated 21.06.2024 in WP(C) No.24246/2023, which is confirmed in WA No.1099/2024, observed that, in such situation, the building permit can be granted. It will be better to extract the observation the judgment dated 21.06.2024 in WP(C)

No.24246/2023:

5. The learned Government Pleader also brings to my attention the judgment in Regional Town Planner v. Muhammed Rasheed [2019 (3) KLT 433] , which states that the Secretary of a local authority, while considering applications for a building permit, has to ensure that the construction for which the permit is sought does not breach the provisions of any law.

6. It is pertinent to note that, though the Master Plan was in existence, the respondents had allowed several buildings to come up in violation of the Scheme and based on this this Court had passed orders, after noticing that several buildings had come up in violation of the Scheme/Master Plan and therefore, preventing an individual, on the basis of the Master Plan which was all along flouted, cannot be justified. Though technically the Master Plans was in existence, it was never followed by the respondents/ authorities which has led to the current situation. The respondents have only themselves to blame and nobody else for the situation in which they are placed. Nothing in the judgment in Regional Town Planner v. Muhammed Rasheed [2019 (3) KLT 433] or in R.P.No. 815/2022 comes in aid of the respondents in the circumstances mentioned above.

7. In that view of the matter, Ext.13 cannot be sustained and the same is, accordingly, quashed. There will be a direction to respondents 3 to 5 to reconsider the application for a revised permit submitted by the petitioners dehors the reasons stated in Ext.P13 and pass orders, if the application is otherwise in order and subject to the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019.

5. In the light of the same, a similar order can be passed in this case also.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following manner:

1. Ext.P9 is set aside.

2. Respondents 3 and 4 are directed to reconsider the application for building permit of the petitioner, dehors the reason mentioned in Ext.P9, and pass appropriate orders in it, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if the building permit application is otherwise in order.