Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AMIT RAWAL, P.V. BALAKRISHNAN
Alberts Maritime Institute Represented By Father Antony Arackal – Appellant
Versus
Bosco Louis, S/o.K.A.Louis – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. request for specific relief in accordance with municipal regulations (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. pending application for regularization and construction issues (Para 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. construction without permit and implications for unauthorized use (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. municipality's authority over unauthorized constructions and licenses (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. court's rationale on upholding orders regarding commercial activity (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. permitting limited use of facilities for educational purposes (Para 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
AMIT RAWAL, J.
This order shall dispose of two writ appeals, WA Nos.1146/2023 and 237/2025. We shall first deal with W.A.No.1146 of 2023, preferred against the judgment of the Single Bench dated 23.05.2023 in W.P.(C)No.795 of 2021.
2. Respondent No.1 - writ petitioner in the aforementioned writ petition approached this Court claiming the following reliefs:
“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the 2nd respondent to ensure that Exhibit P3 is strictly implemented.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the 1st and 2nd respondent
Municipal regulations require that commercial activities be licensed, and unauthorized constructions cannot be utilized for activities without permit, affirming compliance with local statutes.
Statutory provisions governing unauthorized constructions must be adhered to by municipal authorities when issuing orders or taking action against such constructions.
when two fact finding bodies have rendered their decisions taking into account the constructions carried out and the nature of violations, under normal and ordinary circumstances, the writ court woul....
The court ruled that the regularisation of unauthorised construction obstructing a public drain was arbitrary and ultra vires, emphasizing the need for adherence to planning laws and public interest.
Cancelled permition for construction - Quashment of - As per Rule 56(2) rear open space in back should be 1.5m for building up to 10m height and there shall be an increase of rear open space at the r....
The court established that unauthorized constructions in eco-sensitive areas cannot be regularized post facto, and the right to seek regularization is not available to those who violate planning laws....
The Petroleum Rules, 2002 provide exemptions that override local building regulations, affirming no prior permission is needed for relocating fuel tanks within licensed premises.
Building permits and licenses for operational units must be evaluated based on contemporary regulations, and allegations of unauthorized construction require substantial evidence to alter compliance ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
