Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 51058
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
JOJO SEBASTIAN – Appellant
Versus
THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 19322 OF 2020 | WP(C) NO. 27599 OF 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY, SRI.ANIL GEORGE
For the Respondents: SRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY, SC
The court affirmed the entitlement of the petitioner to construct based on a valid building permit despite interim orders restricting construction activities in the area.
Headnote:(1) Statute Analysis: The judgment discusses the validity of building permits in the context of the interim orders relating to construction activities in Girinagar housing colony based on relevant laws and previous cases. The facts demonstrate a dispute surrounding the issuance and revocation of building permits (Ext.P1 and Ext.P6) for residential construction.
Findings of Court:
The court recognizes the inherent entitlement of the petitioner to construct based on the valid permit and highlights previous rulings that support this right.(2)
Issues: The core issue framed by the court concerns the legality of the stop memo and revocation of the petitioner’s permit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court critiques the previous interim orders and asserts that they do not nullify Ext.P1, affirming the petitioner's rights under the building permit issued in compliance with law.(3)
Result: Accordingly, Ext.P4 in W.P.
(C) No.19322 of 2020 and Ext.P6 in W.P.
(C) No.27599 of 2020 are set aside. If the petitioner submits an application for renewal of Ext.P1 building permit, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. validity of building permits in light of interim orders. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's interpretation of previous orders affecting current permits. (Para 3) |
| 3. final disposition of writ petitions and considerations for future applications. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
W.P.(C) No.19322 of 2020 is filed challenging Ext.P4 stop memo issued by the 1st respondent Corporation, whereas W.P.(C) No.27599 of 2020 is filed challenging Ext.P6 order whereby the permit granted to the petitioner was revoked, which is filed by the same petitioner.
2. Petitioner is the owner in possession of property having an extent of 10.975 cents situated in Ernakulam Village, which is within the housing scheme, namely Girinagar housing colony. Ext.P1 building permit was issued for the construction of a residential building. Thereafter, on 15.11.2018 a show cause notice was issued by the 2nd respondent. Thereupon, petitioner approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.1491 of 2019 and the said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent Corporation to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner and directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. After issuance of Ext.P2 petitioner was heard and Ext.P3 order was issued
2025:KER:87078 revoking the stop memo. Thereafter petitioner continued with the construction and while so without hearing the petitioner Ext.P4 stop memo was issued stating that an interim order dated 12.02.2019 was issued in W.P.(C) No.1816 of 2015, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P5. Petitioner submits that Ext.P5 interim order was a modification of the earlier interim order whereby permitting the construction of residential buildings as per the rules other than flats/apartments in Girinagar housing colony and that the said modification is in favour of the petitioner in as much as Ext.P1 building permit was issued for the construction of a residential building. Thereupon Ext.P6 representation was filed before the 2nd respondent, but no action has been taken on the same. Thereupon W.P.(C) No.19322 of 2020 was filed. In W.P.(C) No.19322 of 2020 this Court has passed an order dated 21.10.2020 wherein this Court has found that the petitioner has been given Ext.P1 building permit for the construction of a residential apartment on 08.11.2016 and there was no interdiction at all on 08.11.2016 in the matter of issuing building permits in the nature of Ext.P1 for purely residential purpose and therefore Ext.P5 interim order cannot apply to the building of the petitioner covered by Ext.P1 building permit and holding so, an interim order was granted as prayed for. While so, as a consequence of Ext.P4, Ext.P6 order was issued revoking the permit already granted which led to the filing of W.P.(C) No.27599 of 2020.
2025:KER:87078 The specific case of the petitioner is that the interim order originally granted by this Court in W.P.(C) No.1816 of 2015, which is produced as Ext.R5(a) along with the impleading application filed by the additional 5th respondent will not bind the building permits in the nature of one issued as per Ext.P1 and that Ext.P5 modification order also will not in any way restrict the right of the petitioner to undertake construction activity on the basis of Ext.P1 permit.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the additional 5th respondent, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1816 of 2015, submits that this Court as per Ext.R5(a) interim order in W.P.(C) No.1816 of 2015 has issued a blanket order on 15.06.2015 regarding any construction activity in the Girinagar housing colony and that Ext.P1 permit was issued on 08.11.2016 when Ext.R5(a) order was in force and before Ext.P5 modified order was passed.
4. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.
5. This Court in W.P.(C) No.1816 of 2015 has passed an interim order on 15.06.2015 whereby an interim injunction was issued against any further construction or conversion. But the pertinent aspect to be noted is
