SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 52300

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
JOSEPH DANIEL, AJI OOMMEN – Appellant
Versus
PANDALAM THEKKEKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, SECRETARY PANDALAM THEKKEKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VILLAGE OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 43448 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: THAREEQ ANVER
For the Respondents: K SHAJ, DEEPA V

The rejection of a permit application without a proper inquiry and speaking order violates due process under the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules.

Headnote:The court analyzes the denial of a building permit in light of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019, highlighting the absence of necessary inspections and a speaking order in Ext.P3. The court determines that the petitioners' rights to a fair hearing were not upheld. The application must be reconsidered expeditiously within two months, following a proper inquiry into the merits. The outcome of the case stipulates setting aside Ext.P3 and directs the Panchayat to act promptly.

Table of Content
1. denial of permit application needs adherence to due process. (Para 1 , 2)
2. judicial review of administrative decisions requires transparent and thorough review. (Para 3 , 4)

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"I. To call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P3 letter issued by the 2nd respondent rejecting the petitioners’ application for Building Permit and Development Permit and to quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction;

II. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider and process the petitioners’ application for Building and Development Permit afresh, strictly in accordance with the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019, and after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard;

III. To dispense with filing of English translations of vernacular documents;

IV. To grand such other reliefs as are just and proper in the nature of this case."

[SIC]

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P3 letter issued by the Panchayat rejecting the application submitted by them for building and development permit.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader.

4. This Court perused Ext.P3 letter. A perusal of Ext.P3 would not show that, an inspection was conducted before considering the application. It is also clear from Ext.P3 that, it is not a speaking order. I am of the considered opinion that, Ext.P3 is to be set aside and the matter is to be reconsidered by the Panchayat.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:

1. Ext.P3 is set aside.

2. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioners for permit, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top