Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 992
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
SHERIL J – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 464 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.C.C.ANOOP
For the Respondents: SMT CHITHRA CHANDRASEKHARAN, SC
A party has the right to object before administrative bodies with a duty on the latter to consider such objections fairly.
Headnote:The petition seeks a writ to quash a stop memo issued by the Ranni Perunadu Grama Panchayat against the petitioner's hotel. The Court allows the petitioner to submit objections to this memo and mandates timely consideration of these objections by the Panchayat. The Court retains jurisdiction over all contentions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of the petitioner's request regarding stop memo. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court hears arguments from both parties. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's decision allowing objection submission and further action. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
" i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext. P6 and quash the same;
ii. Issue any such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper considering the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice;
iii. The petitioner undertakes that the English translations of the documents in the vernacular language will be produced as and when directed by this Hon’ble Court. "
[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6 stop memo issued by the Ranni Perunadu Grama Panchayat, by which the Panchayat directed the petitioner to stop the functioning of a hotel.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat.
4. After hearing both sides, I am of the opinion that the writ petition need not be retained here. The petitioner can be allowed to submit his objection to Ext.P6 within a time frame and there can be a direction to consider the same and conclude the proceedings initiated based on Ext.P6.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following manner:
1. The petitioner is free to submit his objection to Ext.P6 within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
2. Once such an objection is received, the 3rd respondent will consider the same after giving an opportunity of hearing the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three weeks from the date of receipt of the objection.
3. All the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are left open.
Sd/-
P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
JUDGE SKP Judgment reserved NA APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 464 OF 2026 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPT OF THE RENT AGREEMENT DATED
14.11.2025 BETWEEN ANUMOL RONY THOMAS AND THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
20.11.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. 6621626-
2025 DATED 18.12.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO HUSBAND OF ANUMOL RONY THOMAS Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE HISTORY OF THE APPLICATION NO. BFIF-00605912-2025 DATED
24.12.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
15.11.2025 WITH REFERENCE NO. 30251115122190175 ISSUED BY FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARD AUTHORITY OF INDIA Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO HAVING FILE NO. 6621626-2025 DATED 3.1.2026 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE
