Municipalities must process building permits ignoring non-existent DTP scheme defects if other defects cured.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

(i) issue a writ of certiorari and to quash Return Note No. 7 in Exhibit P2;

(ii) declare that there is no approved DTP Scheme in Payyanur Municipality, and hence insistence by the respondents in Exhibit P2, to resubmit Exhibit P1 application for Building permit, based on the non- existing DTP scheme is unjust and improper;

(iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or orders directing the respondents to consider Exhibit P1 irrespective of Return Note No.7 in Exhibit P2;

(iv) to dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents;

(v) to grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(SIC)

2. The main prayer in this writ petition is to consider the building permit application in the light of Ext.P3 judgment. The application for building permit was returned with a note that it is included in the DTP Scheme. There are other defects also. Aggrieved by defect No.7 in Ext.P2, this writ petition is filed.

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

4. In the light of Ext.P3 judgment and also the judgment dated 11.11.2025 in WP(C) No.35446/2024, I think a similar order can be passed in this case. But I make it clear that the building permit application need to be considered only if the other defects are cured, except defect No.7.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:

The 2^nd respondent is directed to consider the building permit application, de hors defect No.7 in Ext.P2.