BIJI FRANCIS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P10 order passed by the Chief Town Planner and the order passed by the Government at Ext.P13. One need not go into all the facts as stated in the writ petition since the issue is precise and compact. Suffice it to notice that the objection raised by the Chief Town Planner as also the Government is based on Rule 61(4) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 ('KPBR' for short), of there being no clear access of 7m width for a building of Hazardous category.

(2.) The petitioner intends to start an LPG godown in the premises owned by the petitioner for which Ext.P1 'Letter of Intent' was issued by the 5th respondent Corporation. Before the construction commenced, being a Group 1 - hazardous occupancy, the petitioner had to approach the District Town Planner, as provided under Section 61 of the KPBR. As of now, the issue has been decided by the Chief Town Planner. The petitioner's plot has only an area of 19.173 Ares and the building sought to be constructed has a plinth area of 105.67 square meters. In such circumstance, the consideration ought to have been made by the District Town Planner. However, the Chief Town Planner and the Government have examined the matter and it is to be seen whether the ground for rejection is proper or not, before directing a remand to the District Town Planner. If the petitioner does not have a sustainable case a remand would be futile and then there is no requirement for a mandamus.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat as also the learned Government Pleader.