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) 4616

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
T.D.FRANCIS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 3777 OF 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.RAJIT, SRI.ARJUN S.
For the Respondents: SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SRI.JIJO PAUL KALLOOKKARAN, SRI.JOSHY P.O., SMT.C.SNEHA, SRI.RAJEEV P.R., SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SMT PREETHA K K

A judicial directive for administrative bodies to hear grievances regarding unauthorized construction within a specified timeframe.

Headnote:The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the State and local bodies to cancel a building number concerning unauthorized construction. The petitioner has lodged multiple complaints and seeks a fair hearing on the matter. The Court allows the petition, directing a prompt hearing within six weeks from the order date.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's request for relief against unauthorized construction. (Para 1 , 2)
2. need for a fair hearing regarding the complaints. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“1. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writs or orders directing the respondents 1-3 to cancel the building number issued to the building having No.16/21 of Kolazhy Panchayath.

2. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, equity and law. ”

[SIC]

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, there is unauthorised construction from the side of the 4th respondent. The petitioner submitted Exts.P1 and P4 complaint before the 3rd respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is issued to consider the same, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other affected parties.

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

After hearing both sides, I think that the prayer can be allowed. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The 3rd respondent is directed to consider Exts.P1 and P4, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 4th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE AJ

Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 21.01.2026
Judgment dictated 21.01.2026
Draft judgment placed 23.01.2026
Final Judgment uploaded 24.01.2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD

23.08.2022 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE

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