JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court with a limited plea that his application for regularization of a construction, which he says was completed on the basis of an approved Building Plan and Permit, be directed to be taken up and disposed of at the earliest.

2. The petitioner says that the only violation that has been now alleged is that he has put up an additional truss over his building, which is intended only to save it from the vagaries of nature and therefore, that he has preferred Ext.P5 for having the same also regularized. He thus prays that Ext.P5 be directed to be taken up and disposed of at the earliest.

3. Shri. Binoy Vasudevn, learned Standing Counsel for Palakkad Municipality, in response to the afore submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by Shri.Jacob Sebastian, submitted that there does not appear to be any legal impediment in taking up and disposing of Ext.P5 application for regularization and that during the said process, Ext.P6 request of the petitioner- for treating the truss work as a shed- can also be considered. He, however, prays that this Court may not make any affirmative declarations on the entitlement of the petitioner to any relief and