SATHISH MURTHI Vs. THE PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 7997 and 14455 of 2014 and the additional 3rd respondent in W.P.(C) No. 23236 of 2014 respectively against a common judgment, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed W.P.(C) Nos. 7997 and 14455 of 2014 and disposed of W.P.(C) No. 23236 of 2014 directing consideration of Ext.P5 therein. For convenience, we shall be referring to the facts and documents that are produced in W.P.(C) No. 7997 of 2014 against which W.A. No. 1013 of 2016 is filed.

(2.) We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Municipality.

(3.) Insofar as W.P.(C) Nos. 7997 of 2014 is concerned, the challenge therein is basically against Ext.P8 building permit obtained by the second respondent from the Palakkad Municipality and Ext.P12 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions dismissing the appeal filed against the building permit. In W.P.(C) No. 14455 of 2014, the challenge was mainly against Ext.P8, the building permit and Ext.P10, the recommendation of the Art and Heritage Commission. Insofar as W.P.(C) No. 23236 of 2014 is concerned, that writ petition was filed by the aforesaid second respondent seeking an order to the first respondent in W.A. No. 1025 of 2016, the Art and Heritage Commission, to consider Ext.P5, whereby a modification to an earlier recommendation made by them vide Ext.P10 was sought. As we have already stated, by the judgment under appeal, W.P.(C) Nos. 7997 and 14455 of 2014 were dismissed and W.P.(C) No. 23236 of 2014 was disposed of directing consideration of Ext.P5.