Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2260
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AMIT RAWAL, P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Alberts Maritime Institute Represented By Father Antony Arackal - Appellant
Versus
Bosco Louis, S/o.K.A.Louis - Respondent
WA No. 1146 of 2023
Decided on : 11-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SMT.STIYA SIVAN, SHRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR, SMT.K.R.RENJU, SMT.KARTHIKA M.R., SMT.ASITHA M.M., SMT.ANILA ANTONY, SMT.ANJITHA APREM, SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, (SR.)
For the Respondent: SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER, SC, RI.RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.), SRI.V.HARISH, SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ, SMT.K.R.DEEPA, SR. GP.
Municipal regulations require that commercial activities be licensed, and unauthorized constructions cannot be utilized for activities without permit, affirming compliance with local statutes.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 - Sections 447, 447A, 448, 507, 508, 509(6), and 406(3) - Writ appeals concerning unauthorized construction by an educational trust and the need for licensing to conduct commercial activities - Court upheld the Single Bench ruling that no commercial operations could occur without the necessary licenses (Para 10).
(B) Administrative law - The principle of orderly compliance with municipal regulations regarding construction and activities requiring permits is emphasized, supporting that unauthorized constructions constitute violations (Para 14).
(C) Contempt of court - Clarified the need for compliance with orders and regulations, underscoring the legal duty of the municipality in enforcing such compliance (Para 6).
Facts of the case:
The educational trust had constructed amenities beyond permitted limits and faced issues regarding licensing for commercial activities, resulting in ensuing litigation and municipal orders for demolition and regulation.
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Bench directed compliance with the licensing regulations and underscored that any commercial activities should not proceed without appropriate authorization.
Issues: The main issues discussed were the legality of the educational trust's activities without a license, and the status of the compliance with previous tribunal orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trust cannot conduct commercial activities or use facilities like swimming pools for unauthorized purposes, reaffirming strict adherence to municipal regulations regarding building usage (Para 25).
Result: Writ Appeal No. 237 of 2025 is allowed; Writ Appeal No. 1146 of 2023 is dismissed.
| 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 to complete the demolition as ordered in Exhibit P7 within a period of two months.
(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the 5th respondent to take urgent action on Exhibit P9 report.”
3. On perusal of the aforementioned, two-fold reliefs were sought; one for implementation of the order Ext.P3, dated 26.02.2020, which granted the appellant/third respondent 15 days time to submit a reply, failing which, an action under Sections 447 , 447A, 448, 507 and 508 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 shall be taken and the other, for implementation of Ext.P7 order dated 12.10.2020 passed by the Secretary of the Municipality - second respondent. It is pertinent to mention here that thereafter another order dated 10.02.2021 has been issued by the Secretary of the Municipality, which is Ext.P8 in Writ Appeal No.237 of 2025 details of which will be given later, whereby demolition was ordered. Against the aforementioned order of demolition, the Educational and Charitable Trust preferred a statutory appeal bearing No.97 of 2021 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, under Section 509 (6) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994.
4. After hearing the parties to the lis i.e., the Municipality and the Petitioner in W.P (C)No.795 of 2021, learned Tribunal vide order dated 09.11.2022 set aside the order dated 10.02.2021 of demolition and given an opportunity to the Municipality to hear all the parties and pass a considered final order afresh, expeditiously, after the disposal of Writ Appeal No.1252 of 2022; directed the first respondent Municipality to communicate the decision on the regularization applications to the second appellant in Writ Appeal No.1146 of 2023 i.e., the Trust before passing the final order under Section 406 (3) of the Municipality Act and also granted opportunity to all the aggrieved parties in the proceedings under Section 406 (3) and in the regularization application submitted by the Trust. Thereafter, the Senior Town Planner, vide order dated 28.10.2021 rejected the request of the Trust for regularization and issued order dated 24.04.2022, which was assailed before this Court in Writ Petition No.2992 of 2022. This Court vide judgment dated 13.06.2022 allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order aforementioned, which was assailed in Writ Appeal No.1252 of 2022. It is in that background the direction of the tribunal was issued as the matter with regard to the orders of the tribunal to be either upheld or otherwise was pending consideration before the Division Bench of this Court.
5. The aforementioned fact regarding the order of the tribunal was brought to the notice of the Single Bench. Therefore, on the first prayer as sought for by the writ petitioner i.e., the respondent
