This writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of Ext.P5 and issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to pass final orders on the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner on 23.1.2014. As per Ext.P5, the petitioner was required to submit a revised plan in tune with the published Town Planning Scheme in accordance with the Master Plan enforced in Pala Municipality. In fact, on the strength of Ext.P1 building permit the petitioner completed the construction and thereafter submitted Ext.P4 application for permit to construct based on a revised plan. The contention of the petitioner is that the direction in Ext.P5 cannot be sustained in the light of the specific finding of this Court in Ext.P8 judgment in W.P.(C)Nos.28706, 28724 & 29139 of 2012. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that there is no illegality in requiring the petitioner to submit a revised plan in tune with the published Town Planning Scheme under the Town Planning Act. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew my attention to paragraph 2 of Ext.P8 judgment wherein this Court categorically found that there is no approved Master Plan applicable to Pala Municipality.
WP(C).No.9277/2014 2 Though the learned standing counsel attempted to resist the contentions based on Ext.P8 there is no case for the respondents that they have preferred appeal against Ext.P8. If Ext.P8 has become final I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is also entitled to the relief on the same lines in terms of Ext.P8. As noticed hereinbefore, after considering the rival contentions this court in Ext.P8 arrived at the conclusion that there is no approved Master Plan applicable to Pala Municipality. Since this finding has become final the respondents are not justified in asking the petitioner to submit revised plan when this Court found that there is no Master Plan applicable to Pala Municipality. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P5 is set aside. Consequently, there will be a direction to the respondents to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for permit based on a revised plan without insisting for submission of a revised plan in tune with the published Town Planning Scheme under the Town Planning Act. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS