(1.) The petitioner owns 2.63 ares of property in Sy.No.903 of Petta Village. The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application for a building permit on 14/8/2020 along with a plan providing for a proposed road widening of 12 metres. According to the petitioner, permissions have been granted in the neighbourhood, for construction of houses based on a proposed road widening of 12 metres. On 8/9/2020, the second respondent issued Ext.P2 notice to the petitioner, noting certain defects in the plan submitted. It is seen from Ext.P2 that Ext.P1 application has been received on 14/8/2020. On 15/9/2020, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 revised plan after curing all the defects that are noted in Ext.P2. When there was no response from the respondents, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation, the receipt of which is evidenced by Ext.P5 acknowledgment. The petitioner submits that the Roads Network published by the Trivandrum Development Authority stipulates clearance from the road for works and that the Chambakkada junction-Petta road is not included in the published Master plan and that the place is not included in the Detailed Town Planning scheme as well. According to the petitioner, a 12 metre clearance from the road and a 2 metre building line alone is required in the area where he proposes to construct, as per the Kerala Municipal Building Rules, 2019. The petitioner has specifically pleaded that several persons have been granted the building permit for construction, treating the requirement as 12 metre clearance from the road. The details of such persons have also been stated in the writ petition. Ext.P6 produced is a building permit issued to one such person. The petitioner submits that he is being discriminated against and claims similar treatment. The petitioner had approached this Court earlier in W.P.(C)No.8576 of 2021, which was disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment directing the respondents to consider the revised plan and take a decision regarding the issuance of a building permit. The request for building permit has thereafter been rejected as per Ext.P8, which is titled as a notice, stating that as per the Master plan, the proposed widening for the road is 18 metres and hence the plan submitted, providing for proposed widening of 12 metres cannot be approved. The petitioner challenges Ext.P8 in this writ petition. Along with I.A.No.1 of 2021, the petitioner has produced Ext.P10 reply received from the Public Information Officer, which states that the Petta-Kaithamukku road (Kavaradi Road) is proposed to be widened to 12 metres and on receiving administrative sanction, the marking of the land will be carried out. Ext.P10 is dtd. 25/9/2021. However, Ext.P11 which is a clarification issued by the Town Planner earlier on 19/2/2021 says that as per the Sanctioned Master Plan, the proposal is for an 18 metre widening.
(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent stating that the Regional Town Planner has clarified that the widening is for 18 metres and hence the plan which provides only for 12 metre widening cannot be considered for grant of building permit. The 5th respondent Town Planner has also placed a statement on record stating that as per the Thiruvananthapuram Master Plan sanctioned vide GO(Rt) 921/71/LAD dtd. 21/6/1971, the widening proposal is 18 metres.
(3.) Heard Adv.Smt.Mini Gangadharan on behalf of the petitioner, Sri N.Nandakumara Menon, Senior Advocate instructed by Advocate Sri P.K.Manoj Kumar on behalf of respondents 1 to 4, and Sri Rajeev Jyothish George, Government Pleader on behalf of the 5th respondent.