ASTER DM HEALTH CARE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, which is stated to be a Private Limited Company, has approached this Court impugning Ext.P1 proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent - Regional Town Planner, as per which, their application for building permit, to construct a large hospital building of over 80,000 sq. mts., has been rejected citing the reason that access to the site of such construction is not adequate as per the provisions of the Interim Development Order (IDO for brevity) for Thiruvananthapuram City as also under Rule 33(1) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules (KMB Rules for short).

(2.) The petitioner says that Ext.P1 has been issued by the Town Planner on an erroneous appreciation of true facts, since their property abuts two roads which are more than 10 metres in width each and because the access roads to their property are concededly over 5 metres and 8 metres respectively in their width. The petitioner says, therefore, that going by the 6 th proviso to Rule 33(1) of the KMB Rules, the combined width of these two roads can be taken into account while ascertaining the access width to the property. The petitioner says that this aspect has not been considered by the Regional Town Planner in Ext.P1 and that as is evident therefrom, he has proceeded under the impression that one of the access roads is not connected to the National Highway and therefore, that it cannot be taken into account while calculating the width of the access required to the property.

(3.) The petitioner says that however, going by the counter affidavit filed by the Regional Town Planner before this Court, it is clearly conceded that the objection regarding one of the access roads not being connected to the Highway is no longer relevant, since the road in question will get connected to the National Highway once the work of the said Highway is completed; and thus that they are entitled to the benefit of the 6 th proviso to Rule 33(1) of the KMB Rules. They thus assert that Ext.P1 is untenable.