Gracy Vincent v. Thrissur Corporation & Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN MONDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 22ND MAGHA, 1940 ## WA.No. 1398 of 2015 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC 6315/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 23-03-2015 ## APPELLANT/PETITIONER: GRACY VINCENT, ARAKKAL HOUSE, S N PARK ROAD, POOTHOLE P O, THRISSUR 680 004, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SHIHABUDHEEN T, THACHOTH HOUSE, THEKKENKUTTUR P O, MALAPPURAM 676 551 BY ADV. SRI.BOBBYMATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM ## RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4: 1 THRISSUR CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, M.O ROAD, THRISSUR-1 - 2 THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION, M O ROAD, THRISSUR-1 - 3 FEJO SIMON (VIJAYA DISTRIBUTORS) T C 2/417A, S N PARK ROAD, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR 4 - 4 THE ENGIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, THRISSUR 680 001. BY ADVS. SRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR CORPORATION SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.2.2018, THE COURT ON 11.2.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: W.A. No.1398/2015 -2- ## **JUDGMENT** ## Annie John,J. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment dated 23.03.2015 dismissing W.P.(C) No. 6315 of 2013 filed by her before this Court. The appellant is the petitioner and the respondents herein are the respondents in the aforesaid writ petition. 2. The appellant is residing at TC/48 Division, S.N. Park Road, Pathole, Thrissur with her family for the last 20 years. That area is classified as residential zone as per the District Town Master Plan. In 2007, the third respondent purchased a house bearing No. TC-2/417a just opposite to the appellant's house. There is a road having 3 metre width in between the two houses. The third respondent is now conducting a wholesale business of plastic and other goods in the aforesaid house in the residential zone and has made an unauthorised construction. Respondents 1 and 2 issued licence to the third respondent for commercial purpose in a residential zone. The business of the third respondent is causing various difficulties to the residents therein, such as traffic block, pollution etc. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent Pollution Control Board granted sanction to the third respondent for doing his business. Hence, the appellant prayed for cancelling the licences issued to the third respondent for W.A. No.1398/2015 -3- conducting his wholesale business and for the recovery of the compensation from respondents 1 to 3. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a counter affidavit stating that the licence was issued to the third respondent from 07.02.2011, that the third respondent is remitting commercial tax for the building and that no dust or other particulars were found to be polluting the atmosphere. 4. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that he is having licence to do business in the building in question and there is no obstruction in the road as alleged. 5. The fourth respondent has also filed a counter affidavit stating that the unit of the third respondent is situated inside the residential area, that the first floor of the unit was covered with garden net and the second floor was partially covered with plastic sheet and rest of the area was kept open and that the third respondent purchased land on the east to park vehicles for loading and unloading. 6. The appellant has filed a reply affidavit stating that the licences are issued in violation of the relevant provisions of law and the Town Planning Scheme applicable to the first respondent Corporation. 7. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the W.A. No.1398/2015 -4- learned single Judge failed to consider the crucial question whether a residential area can be converted into a commercial building and that whether permission can be granted to conduct a wholesale business in a residential area. It is evident from Ext.P13 application for licence, P14 licence, the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, Ext.P16 reply given from the Zonal Office of the first respondent under the Right to Information Act and Exts.P6, P7 and P17 that the business of the third respondent in the building bearing No.TC 2/417-A is a wholesale business of plastic goods. It is also an admitted fact that the building in which the third respondent is doing wholesale business and the appellant's residential building are situated in a residential zone. Exts.P1, P6, P7, P8, P25 and P28 and the counter affidavit of the fourth respondent declares that the building of the appellant and the third respondent are situated in a residential area in the master plan for Thrissur Town. The learned counsel has also contended that the learned single Judge omitted to consider the legal impediment for doing wholesale business in a residential area though those aspects were brought to the notice of the court at the time of hearing. The learned Single Judge has not considered the application of Annexure I General Town Planning Scheme for Thrissur Town issued by the State of Kerala under the Town Planning Act, 1108 ME. The business of the W.A. No.1398/2015 -5- third respondent is a prohibited one and therefore, the learned single Judge ought to have held that Ext.P14 licence issued by the first respondent was illegal and unsustainable. It was further argued that the residential building of the third respondent in the residential zone is converted as a commercial building. It is stated in Exts.P7, P16 and P17 and the counter affidavit of respondents 1 and 2 that an application is received by respondents 1 and 2 from the third respondent to convert the residential building to a commercial building and that a residential building in a thickly populated residential area is permitted to be converted as a commercial building so as to conduct a wholesale business therein. In fact, the area under which the buildings of the appellant and the third respondent is situated is a residential zone and not a commercial zone. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the conversion of the residential building of the third respondent is illegal and unsustainable. Further, it was argued that the third respondent conducted his business without obtaining the consent of the 4[th] respondent Pollution Control Board as is evident from Exts.P6, P7 and P8. Exts.R3(c) and R4(a) consent is issued only on 07.03.2013 i.e., after the filing of the writ petition. Besides, the the learned Single Judge did not even go through Exts.R3(c) consent issued by the 4[th] respondent. According to the appellant's counsel, W.A. No.1398/2015 -6- Ext.R3(c) is issued only for conducting a retail shop which is permitted by Annexure I scheme in a residential zone, but he is doing a wholesale business. Accordingly, there was no consent for conducting the wholesale business in the residence of the third respondent. The third respondent did not comply with the directions of the Human Rights Commission in Ext.P6 order. With the aforesaid averments, the appellant filed the writ appeal. 9. The grievance of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge has not considered the legal impediments for doing the wholesale business in a residential area. Though those aspects were brought to the notice of this Court at the time of hearing, the learned Single Judge has not considered Annexure I application of General Town Planning Scheme for Thrissur Town issued by the State of Kerala under the Town Planning Act, 1108 ME. In fact, there was no law permitting respondents 1 and 2 to convert the building as is done in this case. The learned Single Judge has ignored the fact that the conversion of the nature of the 3[rd] respondent's building is illegal and arbitrary and is against the provisions of law. In fact, the building of the third respondent is situated in a residential area and not in a commercial area. The third respondent has conducted his business without obtaining the consent from the 4[th] respondent Pollution Control W.A. No.1398/2015 -7- Board as evidenced by Exts.P6, P7 and P8. Exts.R3(c) and R4(a) consent was issued only on 07.03.2013 i.e, after the filing of the above writ petition. 10. In fact, the writ petition was filed by the appellant, who is a resident in Division No.48 of Thrissur Corporation and she was represented through her power of attorney holder. The prayer in the writ petition was to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the first and second respondents to conduct a wholesale business in household plastic items, stoves etc. and to issue a direction to the said respondents to close down the said business and to ensure that no licence is issued in future to the third respondent. Further, another relief sought for by the writ petitioner was to direct the first and second respondents to pay Rs.5 lakhs which is to be recovered from the officers concerned and another Rs.5 lakhs from the third respondent as compensation for the loss and mental agony caused to her because of the unlawful actions both from the said Corporation and from the third respondent and to direct the additional 4[th] respondent to cancel the consent issued to the 3[rd] respondent for the reasons stated in the statement of facts and grounds and to direct the first and second respondents to take necessary legal action against the illegal constructions done by the third respondent. Considering the W.A. No.1398/2015 -8- arguments advanced by the writ petitioner, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition finding that the writ petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. She has not substantiated any evidence to support her arguments as contained in the writ petition. There is no reason to believe that the traffic block would be created in the locality in question due to the functioning of the business in question. In case of any traffic block, it is upto the proper authority to take necessary measures to tackle with such situations and there is no reason for ordering any closure of the ongoing business. Further, it was held that the materials produced in the proceedings would reveal that the grievance of the appellant relating to the pollution and traffic jam in the area were properly taken into account by respondents 1, 2 and 4. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge. The writ petitioner filed this writ appeal before us by projecting the grievance that the third respondent occupies the residential building for the purpose of conducting a wholesale business. Further, he has argued that the third respondent's building is situated in a residential area and respondents 1 and 2 have no right to convert the residential building into a commercial building for the purpose of conducting the wholesale business by the third respondent. It was further argued that due to W.A. No.1398/2015 -9- the functioning of the said business, it creates lot of traffic jam and also affects peaceful life of the appellant. Admittedly, the third respondent is conducting a business in partnership in household plastic, kitchen utensils etc. It was further argued that the area in question where the appellant's residential building with TC/48 situates is a residential zone under the Town Planning Scheme and therefore, the third respondent should not have been permitted to conduct the aforesaid business in the building situated within the residential zone and by granting the licence to operate the said business from there. It is further argued that respondents 1 and 2 have contravened the provisions under Sections 381A and 382 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. The main grievance of the appellant is the inaction on the part of the Pollution Control Board to enforce the directions of the Human Rights Commission in Ext.P6 order. Further, the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions have passed Ext.P12 order dated 23.01.2013 without hearing the appellant and the same violates the statutory principles of natural justice. It was also argued by the appellant's counsel that the disputed building where the business is being run situates in front of the residential building owned by the appellant and it caused annoyance to her peaceful and dignified life and it violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. W.A. No.1398/2015 -10- 11. Respondents 1 and 2 denied all the allegations and stated that the third respondent is running an establishment by name Vijaya Distributors in the building in question on the strength of the licence issued by the Corporation. In fact, the third respondent is doing only wholesale business of plastic chair, plastic kitchen containers and Newthan stove in the building which is situated across the road on the opposite side of the building where the appellant resides. It was also pointed out by the respondent's counsel that the third respondent has been running the business from 07.02.2011 onwards and he has been remitting the commercial tax as well. It is also argued that except the sale of the wholesale business, no action was taken for manufacturing the same in the building. The third respondent has covered the plastic sheets in front of the building in question. On inspection, it was revealed that no such violation of the conditions of licence could be detected. The appellant has also filed O.P. No. 1651 of 2012 before the learned Ombudsman for cancellation of the D & O licence given to the third respondent and the same was dismissed as per Ext.P12 order dated 23.01.2013. In that order, it was stated that the appellant has filed the petition alleging the problem caused due to the running of a go-down by the second respondent. The Corporation had taken a stand that they have taken into consideration the entire materials and W.A. No.1398/2015 -11- had also obtained the clearance from the Pollution Control Board and thereafter, he has been granted the licence. It was also stated that on the very same matter, the appellant has approached the Munsiff's Court, Thrissur as O.S.No. 2946 of 2012 for the cancellation of licence. He has also sought for mandatory injunction. In fact, the Corporation has already granted the licence and if anybody is aggrieved by the licence, the appropriate remedy is to approach the appellate authority and Ombudsman cannot usurp the jurisdiction of appellate authority. Accordingly the Ombudsman has rejected the prayer for cancellation of licence. From Ext.P12, it is borne out that the appellant has already approached the Ombudsman and the Local Self Government Authorities and also filed the Original Suit, O.S. No. 2946 of 2012 for the cancellation of the licence. It is admitted by the appellant that respondents 1 and 2 have already granted licence for conducting the commercial business and they have already approached the Munsiff's Court seeking the very same relief. In addition to that, they have approached this Court by filing a writ petition projecting the same grievance which was already stated in the Original Suit before the Munsiff's Court, Thrissur. It was also borne out that the third respondent has already obtained licence and clearance certificate from the 4[th] respondent, the Pollution Control Board. It was also projected W.A. No.1398/2015 -12- in the writ appeal that the respondents have violated the directions of Human Rights Commission dated 13.02.2012 and it was stated therein that no direction, whatsoever, was issued by the Human Rights Commission to take steps to close down the business run by the third respondent in the said building. The Human Rights Commission has issued only a direction to ensure compliance with the conditions and directions of the Pollution Control Board and also to take steps to avoid creation of traffic blocks. 12. The third respondent has also filed an affidavit before the learned single Judge by stating that he has obtained licence from the first and second respondents for running the business. The third respondent has also produced Ext.R3(A) sales tax registration certificate issued in favour of Vijaya Distributors and also Ext.R3(B) licence dated 25.02.2014 issued by the Corporation of Thrissur for conducting the business for the period 2013-2014. Ext.R3(c) is the consent to operate issued by the Pollution Control Board. In fact, the third respondent has argued that the only intention of the appellant is to harass him and to close down the business which is being run by him in the disputed building. Ext.P6 is the order issued by the Kerala Human Rights Commission on 13.02.2012 wherein certain directions were issued which reads thus: W.A. No.1398/2015 -13- - (1) S.I. Of Police, Thrissur West to ensure that the respondent parkes their goods vehicles inside their compound instead of causing traffic block by parking on the public road; - (2) Store goods in an enclosed place as instructed by the Pollution Control Board. The Board should also ensure that the respondent business is not operated during night hours. Pollution Control Board Engineer should ensure that the respondent business is duly complying with the said directions; - (3) It is unlawful to carry on the respondent business without obtaining the consent and complying with directions issued by the Board. If the respondent business is not complying with the above mentioned directions, Board shall take necessary steps to shut down the said business; - (4) The Commissioner must be informed about the actions taken by the CI, Thrissur West Police and Pollution Control Board within two months. 13. As per the third direction, if it is found that the business is being conducted without obtaining the licence from the Pollution Control Board, the respondent therein got the right to stop the business. So, as per the order, if the appellant has any grievance regarding the non-implementation of the directions in Ext.P6, she could have taken appropriate action in accordance with law. In fact, respondents 1 and 2 have assertively stated that there was no violation of the directions and conditions of the Pollution Control Board and in fact, the third respondent is conducting business after complying with such conditions in the consent to operate issued by the Pollution Control Board. The Pollution Control Board has no case that W.A. No.1398/2015 -14- in violation of any of the conditions contemplated as per the Pollution Control Board, the third respondent is being conducting the business therein. In fact, respondents 1 and 2 have assertively stated that the third respondent has obtained necessary licence from the Corporation to conduct the said business in the aforesaid place and that they have taken into account the steps for the purpose of avoiding traffic jam, if any, on that spot. I have gone through Ext.P12, wherein no such direction was given to the respondents to close down the firm. The appellant has no case that the third respondent is running the firm without obtaining the licence from the Local Self Government Authorities or without getting clearance from the Pollution Control Board. At present, the third respondent is running a business after obtaining proper licence from the Local Self Government Authorities and the clearance from the Pollution Control Board and further, the appellant has no case that she has challenged Ext.P12 order before any of the competent authorities. It is also borne out that the appellant has approached almost all the forums to rectify the alleged grievance. But she has not obtained any favourable orders to close down the business carried on in the building in question. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, there was an order by the Human Rights Commission to close down the business in case of W.A. No.1398/2015 -15- violation of any conditions therein. But, no such specific order was issued by the Human Rights Commission as per Ext.P6 order. The Environmental Engineer attached to the 4[th] respondent, the Pollution Control Board, filed Ext.P7 report dated 13.01.2011 before the Human Rights Commission. As per the report, it could be seen that the minimum distance between the third respondent concern and the appellant's residence is 13.40 metres. It is also reported that in case the suggestions and conditions mentioned therein are complied with and the concern obtained consent from the Pollution Control Board, the grievances of the appellant would be redressed. Ext.P8 dated 16.11.2012 was the communication from the Member Secretary of the Pollution Control Board to the Grievance Redressal Cell of the Chief Minister pursuant to the submission of complaint by the petitioner before the Redressal Cell. It is also stated therein that the application of the appellant would be considered only after satisfying compliance with all the instructions of the Pollution Control Board and that such information had been given to the person concerned of Vijaya Distributors. Thereafter, Ext. R4(c) consent to operate has been given in favour of Vijaya Distributors in the year 2013. It is not true that at the time of filing the writ petition, the 4[th] respondent has not issued consent. But, later consent was issued as borne out in Ext.R4(a) and W.A. No.1398/2015 -16- that with that term and consent to operate the business the third respondent is conducting the business therein. It is also borne out that the appellant has approached so many forums to rectify the grievance by projecting the same reason as mentioned in the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal. When he failed to get the favourable relief in her favour, she rushed to this Court by filing the writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. It is an admitted fact that the third respondent is conducting a wholesale business in household plastic items, stoves etc. inside the building in question, which situates opposite to the appellant's residential building. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on _**Bangalore Medical Trust v. S. Muddappa and others[1]**_ and argued that the Government has no power to alter any scheme or convert any site. It is the local persons who can properly assess the need and necessity for altering a scheme and if any proposal to convert from one use to another was an improvement for the residents of locality, such exercise would not be undertaken by the Government. Absence of power apart, such exercise is fraught with danger of being activated by extraneous considerations. Even otherwise, physical or personal or economic injury may give rise to civil or criminal action but violation 1 AIR 1991 sc 1902 W.A. No.1398/2015 -17- of rule of law either by ignoring or affronting individual or action of the executive in disregard of the provisions of law raises substantial issue of accountability of those entrusted with responsibility of the administration. It furnishes enough cause of action either for individual or community in general to approach by way of writ petition and the authorities cannot be permitted to seek shelter under cover of technicalities of _locus standi_ nor they can be heard to plead for restraint in exercise of discretion as grave issues of public concern outweigh such considerations. But, in this case, the appellant was not able to substantiate that there is violation of the provisions of Rules as contemplated under the Municipality Act or under any other law. It is proved on the fact of the respondents, including respondents 1, 2 and 4, the Local Self Government Authorities and the Pollution Control Board that they have issued proper licences to the third respondent for starting a wholesale business in the disputed building and no evidence was forthcoming to prove that the third respondent has violated any of the conditions as per law for running the business in the disputed building. In our view, the court cannot take an approach to interfere with the action taken by respondents 1 and 2. In fact, if the licence was issued illegally in favour of respondent No.3, definitely, they could have approached the W.A. No.1398/2015 -18- appellate authority or the Civil Court to cancel the licence alleged to have been issued in favour of respondent No.3. It is borne out from Ext.P12 that the appellant has already approached the Munsiff's Court, Thrissur for the cancellation of the licence admittedly issued by respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, there is no justification for the appellant to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for similar reliefs. 15. The learned counsel has also placed reliance on _**M.C. Mehta**_ _**v. Union of India and others**_[1] , in which it is held in paragraph 2 thus: “This Court has a constitutional duty to protect the fundamental rights of Indian citizens. What happens when violators and /or abettors of the violations are those, who have been entrusted by law with a duty to protect these rights? The task becomes difficult and also requires urgent intervention by court so that the rule of law is preserved and people may not lose faith in it, finding violations at the hands of supposed implementers. The problem is not of the absence of law, but of its implementation.” 16. It is also argued by the appellant's counsel by pointing out different facts mentioned in the aforesaid decision that directions were later issued for shifting of other extensive industries considering the continued unauthorised use contrary to master plan and zonal plan, by those industries as well as some other industries continuing in > 1 (2006) 3 SCC 399 W.A. No.1398/2015 -19- residential/non-conforming areas. 17. Here the question is whether the first and second respondents have got any authority to convert the residential area into a commercial building. Anyhow, action was taken by respondents 1 and 2 and the third respondent's building was converted to commercial building. Accordingly, licence was granted to the third respondent. On the strength of the licence, he started the wholesale business of plastic goods. In fact, the appellant's counsel has attempted to prove that the first and second respondent have no authority or power to convert the residential area into a commercial area. It is true that the disputed building is a residential building; but the third respondent has converted the residential building to a commercial building. According to him, it was granted for the purpose of conducting wholesale business in household plastic items, stoves etc. Absolutely no evidence was adduced by the appellant's counsel regarding the violation of the Building Rules. Therefore, the learned Single Judge held that there was no reason to accept the contention of the writ petitioner regarding the violation of the Building Rules. It is admitted by the first and second respondent that the third respondent is running wholesale business in household plastic items, stove etc. on the strength of the licence issued by the Corporation. W.A. No.1398/2015 -20- 18. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is stated in paragraph 5 that in the year 2011, an application bearing No. AWL/R1/5076/11 was made by the owner seeking to convert the nature of the building into a commercial building. After conducting proper enquiries, the application was allowed and occupancy with respect to the building from residential to a commercial one and consequent to the change of the nature of the occupancy into a commercial building, on the basis of the assessment made in this regard, property tax at the commercial rate was fixed at the rate of Rs.5850/- per annum taking the annual rent value as 3750+45000 and it was being paid by the owner. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, it is specifically stated that the unit by name 'Vijay Distributors' is functioning within the aforesaid building now converted into a commercial building and that the said unit was granted D & O licence on 07.02.2011 for conducting a wholesale business of plastic chairs, Nutan stoves etc. In fact, the Pollution Control Board has issued Ext.R4(c) consent to conduct business therein. Even though the total plinth area of the disputed building has not been changed and no additional constructions were made by the third respondent in the building, the appellant could not establish that the third respondent is running the business without obtaining proper licence or consent from W.A. No.1398/2015 -21- the Pollution Control Board. It is proved by the third respondent that he has obtained consent from the Pollution Control Board for starting the business. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. 19. The next question to be considered is whether the running of the business causes nuisance or traffic jam as alleged by the appellant. It is also borne out that the 4[th] respondent or respondents 1 and 2 have not noticed any instance of of air pollution or violation of any conditions in Ext.R3(c). If any such instance were to come to the notice of the 4[th] respondent, the 4[th] respondent is empowered to take action. It was submitted by the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 that as an abundant caution, the third respondent has covered the front side of the building with plastic sheets to avoid any chance of nuisance being created owing to its functioning in the premises to the neighbourhood. As regards the allegation that there occurs traffic block due to the functioning of the disputed business, we find that in the affidavit filed by the second respondent it is stated that the gate at the entrance of the building in question was widened and at present heavy vehicles could easily be parked in the compound of the building and loading and unloading of goods could be undertaken without any traffic block in front of the building and some photographs were also W.A. No.1398/2015 -22- produced which would reveal that the entire vehicles are kept inside the premises of the building and not on the right side. Therefore, the appellant's contention that the parking of the vehicles will create heavy traffic block in that area is not correct. Even if the third respondent is parking vehicles on the right side by causing heavy traffic jam, it is upto the appropriate authorities to take necessary steps to solve the problem. It is not upto this Court to give necessary directions to the competent authorities to cancel the licence duly issued after proper enquiry. So, the relief sought by the appellant in the writ petition cannot be granted through a writ of mandamus. In fact, it is borne out that the appellant has already approached the civil court to rectify her grievances. She has approached different forums one after another alleging the same set of facts and she failed to succeed before the Local Self Government Authorities, the Human Rights Commission as well as this Court. The intention of the appellant is only to disturb the business peacefully conducted by the third respondent in the disputed building. The appellant has failed to establish that respondents 1 and 2 have no authority to issue licence to the building owned by the third respondent. As regards the contention of the appellant on the strength of the notification issued by the General Town Planning Scheme for Thrissur Town that only retail shops are permitted in the W.A. No.1398/2015 -23- residential area and not a commercial one, we are of the view that the remedy available to the appellant is to approach the civil court and not through the writ court. On the basis of the arguments advanced by both sides and the documents produced by either side, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. Therefore, this writ appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. sd/- **JUDGE.** **K. SURENDRA MOHAN,** sd/- **ANNIE JOHN, JUDGE.** W.A. No.1398/2015 -24- ## **APPENDIX** ## **APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES:** ANNEXURE I: TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL TOWN PLANNING SCHEME FOR THRISSUR TOWN ISSUED BY THE STATE OF KERALA UNDER THE TOWN PLANNING ACT, 1108ME. ANNEXURE II: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT REGULARISING THE UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:** NIL /True Copy/ PS to Judge. rv