Leena Jose vs Corporation Of Thrissur Represented By Its Secretary

Murali Purushothaman

The petitioner was issued with Ext.P1 occupancy certificate by the 2nd respondent in respect of her residential building. The petitioner sought for conversion of two rooms in the said building to commercial category and submitted a plan for the said purpose. The 2nd respondent issued Ext.P2 notice seeking rectification of certain discrepancies crept in the plan. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 reply along with a revised plan stating that the defects pointed out in Ext.P2 are not sustainable. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite submitting the revised plan and giving appropriate explanation to Ext.P2 notice, the 2nd respondent has not so far considered her application. Accordingly, this writ petition is filed.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made across the Bar, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P3, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.