1. The petitioner states that he along with his wife owns a commercial plot having an extent of 12.91 ares (33 cents) in resurvey number 71, resurvey block 14 in Palakkad Village in Palakkad Taluk, abutting Olavakkode-- Palakkad Highway and within the limits of Palakkad Municipality. It is stated that there is already a commercial building in the plot which is 20 years old and the petitioner proposes to build a commercial building in the said plot.

2. The petitioner submitted an application dated 17.09.2021 for building permit to construct a commercial building in the aforesaid plot. The 2nd respondent, the Secretary of the Municipality rejected the application by Ext. P4 communication stating that the building permit cannot be granted in the light of G.O.(MS) No. 210/09/LSGD dated 11.11.09.

3. According to the petitioner, the building permit cannot be rejected on the basis of the reason stated in Ext. P4 since the Detailed Town Planning Scheme (DTP Scheme) and the approved Master plan for Palakkad Municipality sanctioned as per G.O.(MS) No. 210/09/LSGD dated 11.11.09 (produced as Ext. P9) have become obsolete and as per the new Draft Master plan, the area is a mixed zone where residential as well as commercial buildings can be constructed. It is also stated that even as per Ext. P9 Government Order, construction of commercial buildings to a depth of 50 meters on the side of roads having a width of 15 meters or more is permissible and that the main road abutting the property of the petitioner is more than 15 meters wide. The petitioner also contends that when a draft master plan is published, the building permit shall be in accordance with the draft master plan till the master plan is published. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to quash Ext. P4 and the DTP Scheme and approved Master Plan of the Municipality referred to in Ext. P4, so far as they relate the petitioner’s plot. The petitioner has also sought for direction to the 2nd respondent to issue building permit as applied for.

4. A statement dated 09.02.2022 is filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 wherein it is stated that the petitioner’s property has been included in the data bank and therefore, permit cannot be granted in terms of Section 14 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. It is also stated that as per the DTP scheme, the property of the petitioner is situated in residential zone where commercial activities cannot be permitted. Since Ext. P9 does not permit construction of commercial buildings with plinth area more than 100 mt.sq , the petitioner was informed by Ext. P4 that his application for construction of commercial building having an area of 504.79 mtr. Sq cannot be granted. It is further stated that, going by the provisions under Section 113 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016, till a new master plan is prepared under the said Act, the existing Master Plan will continue to hold the field.

5. A statement dated 07.03.2022 has been filed by the Government Pleader on behalf of the District Town Planning Officer, the 3rd respondent wherein it is stated inter alia that, as per Section 50 of the Kerala State Town and Country Planning Act, 2016, a sanctioned Master Plan shall be revoked by a subsequent Master Plan published and sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and therefore, the Master Plan for Palakkad Town sanctioned by the Government vide G.O(MS) No. 236/86/LAD dated 20.11.1986 is in force. It is also stated that though a draft Master Plan was published in 2016, it will come to effect only if it is sanctioned by Government. It is stated that as per the zoning provisions of the Master Plan, the application of the petitioner for building permit cannot be granted.

6. Heard Sri. Jacob Sebastian, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Binoy Vasudevan, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Smt. Surya Binoy, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 3 and 4.

7. Sri. Jacob Sebastian refers to Ext.P8 dated 26.07.2022 issued by the RDO whereby the property of the petitioner has been removed from the data bank and contends that the building permit cannot be rejected for the reason that it is included in the data bank. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the Municipality has admitted in the statement that four buildings exist in the property and the permission sought for by the petitioner is for construction of a commercial building after demolishing three of the said four buildings. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the 2nd respondent has not adverted to or applied his mind to the general guidelines in Ext.P9 while rejecting the application for building permit. The learned counsel took me through the General Conditions No.(i) in Ext. P9 which reads as under; GENERAL GUIDELINES:

“(i) Land to a depth of 50 metres in residential zone and 100 metres in Commercial, Public and Semi Public and Industrial zones along the sides of roads having an existing width of 15 meters or more uses permitted in Commercial and Public and Semi Public zones may also be permitted by the executive authority if such uses are not allowable otherwise in the zoning regulations. The provisions of Detailed Town planning Scheme if any, prevail over these regulations.”

8. Sri. Jacob submits that Ext. P9 order permits construction of commercial buildings to a depth of 50 meters on the side of roads having a width of 15 meters and the Olavakkode-Palakkad Highway abutting the property of the petitioner is having a width of more than 15 meters and the building permit cannot be rejected on the basis of Ext.P9 Government Order and there is total non-application of mind on the part of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the application of the petitioner for building permit. He also submits that the stand of the Municipality that building permit cannot be granted to the petitioner as the property is included in the data bank also cannot be sustained in the light of Ext. P8 proceedings.

9. Ext. P4 order rejecting the application of the petitioner for building permit is a non-speaking order. It only states that the permit cannot be granted for the construction of a commercial building having an area of 504.79 sq.meters as per Ext. P9 Government order. The second respondent has not referred to any clause in Ext.P9 Government Order whereby the application of the petitioner for building permit is liable to be rejected. Since Ext. P4 is a non-speaking order, the same is set aside. The 2nd respondent shall have a revisit on the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner dated 17.09.2021 for building permit afresh with notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

10. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. There will be no order as to costs.