Procedural fairness requires timely consideration of applications by municipal authorities regarding construction regularization.

JUDGMENT

These two writ petitions are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these two cases by a common judgment.

2. The prayers in Writ Petition No.356/2021 is extracted hereunder:

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents No.1 and 2 to take further action on Ext.P8 and to demolish the illegal construction of the 3^rd respondent within the time frame by this Hon’ble Court.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P9 and pass orders thereon within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

iii) Issue such other appropriate writs, orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

[SIC]

3. The prayers in WP(C) No.36317/2025 is also extracted hereunder:

“i. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd Respondent to regularize the construction of the building in Resurvey No. 7/1A of Panoor Municipality, Kannur District covered in Exhibit P-1.

ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd Respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P-10 regularization application dated 20.05.2025 in accordance with law.

iii. Issue such other Writ, Order or Direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit and proper to grant in the fact and circumstances of the case.

iv. Issue such other appropriate order or direction dispensing with the filing of English translation of the vernacular documents produced along with the writ petition”

[SIC]

4. The prayers in WP(C) No.356/2021 is mainly to take action against the illegal construction made by the petitioner in WP(C) No.36317/2025. The petitioner in WP(C) No.36317/2025 submitted that, Ext.P10 regularization application is pending and the same is not considered by the 2^nd respondent. If that be the case, I think, there can be a direction to the 2^nd respondent in WP(C) No.36317/2025 to consider Ext.P10, after giving notice to the petitioners in these writ petitions and pass appropriate orders in it, within a time frame. Based on the decision, the Municipality will take necessary steps, in accordance with law.

Therefore, these Writ Petitions are disposed of with the following directions:

1. The 2^nd respondent in WP(C) No.36317/2025 is directed to consider Ext.P10 application produced in that writ petition and take necessary steps in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in both these writ petitions (WP(C) Nos.356/2021 and 36317/2021), as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

2. Based on the decision in Ext.P10, the Municipality will do the needful, in accordance with law.

3. All the contentions raised by the petitioner in WP(C) No.356/2021 are left open and the petitioner can raise the same at the disposal of the regularization application, in accordance with law.