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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 3246

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
SIKKU S S – Appellant
Versus
CORPORATION OF KOCHI – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 47894 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY
For the Respondents: SRI.ARUN ANTONY, SC GP, SMT PREETHA K K

The court affirms the necessity for timely administrative action upon petitioner's request, prioritizing justice and fairness in municipal matters.

Headnote:This judgment addresses a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the Corporation of Kochi to consider the petitioner's application (Ext.P12) following the withdrawal of objections. The Court found merit in allowing the consideration of Ext.P12, with coercive actions based on Ext.P11 being stayed. The Court emphasized the need for prompt resolution within six weeks from receiving the judgment copy. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner by allowing the writ petition and implementing interim measures.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks mandamus for application consideration. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court acknowledges merits in the petitioner's request. (Para 3 , 4)

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate writ directing the 1st Respondent to take up Exhibit P12 Application and to withdraw Ext P11 order and thereby to number the building of the petitioner within a time limit fixed by this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice.

ii. To call for the entire records leading to the issuance of Ext P11 order and to set aside, in the interest of justice.

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate writ directing the 1st Respondent not to take any coercive proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P11, in the interest of justice.

iv. Dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents.

v. To Grant such other reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice..” [SIC]

2. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that against Ext.P11, the petitioner submitted Ext.P12 before the Corporation. It is also submitted that the petitioner seeks regularization as ordered in Ext.P7 order of the Tribunal. The counsel submitted that there may be a direction to consider Ext.P12.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. I also heard the learned Government Pleader.

4. After hearing both sides, I think the prayer of the petitioner can be allowed. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the party who filed the objection, already withdrawn the complaint and the same is recorded in Ext.P11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, there can be a direction to consider Ext.P12. Till then, the interim order already passed by this Court, can be allowed to continue.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

1. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P12, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

2. Till final orders are passed in Ext.P12, coercive steps against the petitioner, based on Ext.P11, shall be kept in abeyance.

Sd/-

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