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) 55020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
JISMON M.L – Appellant
Versus
THE CHOWANNUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 46230 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.D.KISHORE, SMT.MEERA GOPINATH, SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN, SHRI.ANANT KISHORE
For the Respondents: SRI RAJPRADEEP

The court emphasizes the need for adherence to building regulations for trade license renewal and ensures status quo is maintained until final decisions are made.

Headnote:This writ petition seeks reliefs including mandamus for the renewal of a trade license despite the petitioner's building not being regularized under Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011. The court hears submissions and allows consideration of the petitioner's representation in light of existing regulations, directing the 3rd respondent to act accordingly within two months while maintaining the status quo on the petitioner's license until then. The judgment emphasizes adherence to relevant building regulations and provides directions for expeditious consideration.

Table of Content
1. request for trade license renewal despite building regulation issues. (Para 1)
2. counsel requests status-quo on license during consideration. (Para 2)
3. court hears both sides before decision. (Para 3)
4. directives for expedited license review and status quo maintenance. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“a. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 3rdrespondent to consider and act on Exhibit P17 representation with specific reference to Exhibit P8 Building Age Certificate and to renew the trade license of the petitioner, if otherwise eligible.

b. Declare that the building of the petitioner bearing building No. 13/304 need not be regularized as the building was in existence prior to the coming in to force of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 and that the trade license of the petitioner cannot be refused to be renewed on the ground that the building is not regularized.

c. To dispense with the filing of English translation of vernacular documents produced along with the Writ Petition.

d. grant such other reliefs which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

[SIC]

2. When this writ petition came up for consideration, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that, there may be a direction to consider Ext.P17 by the 3rd respondent, and till then a status-quo with respect to license may be allowed to continue.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. After hearing both sides, I think that the prayer can be allowed. But, I make it clear that the 3rd respondent is free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, of-course in the light of Ext.P8.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

i) The 3rd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P17 in the light of Ext.P8, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

ii) Till final orders are passed in Ext.P17, a status-quo regarding the license issued to the petitioner will continue.

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