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) 6395

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
K.G.VIJAYAMMA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 3614 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.ABHIJITH SREEKUMAR, SHRI.TITTU JOSE CHACKANAD
For the Respondents: VIDYA KURIAKOSE SR.GP

The court mandates that representations for permits must be considered expeditiously, setting a clear timeline for compliance.

Headnote:The petition for Mandamus requests the court to command the consideration of a representation for a building permit and the reinstatement of a movement permit for soil removal. The court allows the prayer and directs timely consideration and hearing. The final directive obliges the third respondent to act within a month following receipt of the judgment copy.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks permit consideration. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court directs prompt consideration by panchayat. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

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

"(i) Issue a writ under the nature of Mandamus or such other writ, direction, or order, commanding the Respondents to consider the representation preferred by the petitioner dated 31.12.2025 and pass directions within a period stipulated by this Hon’ble Court;

(ii) Issue a writ under the nature of Mandamus or such other writ, direction, or order, commanding the Respondents to consider and grant the Petitioner a new building permit based on her application dated 18-10-

2025.

(iii) Issue a writ under the nature of Mandamus or such other writ, direction, or order, commanding the Respondents to reinstate the Movement Permit for soil removal No. 2822170-2025 dated 22-09-2025;

(iv) Pass any such other directions or writs which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and appropriate considering the facts and circumstances of this case in the interest of justice;

(v) To dispense with the production of documents in vernacular language. "

[SIC]

2. According to the petitioner, he obtained a building permit for removing 345.4 cubic meters of soil along with 43 passes. While the construction work started on 24.09.2025, a stop memo was issued by the Panchayat as evident by Ext.P3. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation. The prayer of the petitioner is to consider Ext.P4.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The manner in which this writ petition is going to be disposed of, no notice is necessary to respondents 2 and 3. If they are aggrieved by any of the directions issued by this Court, the respondents 2 and 3 are free to file review petition before this Court.

Since, the petitioner’s prayer is only for consideration of Ext.P4, I think that prayer can be allowed. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

i) The 3rd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P4, and pass appropriate orders in it, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or a representative of the petitioner.

ii) The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition with Exhibits before the 3rd respondent for compliance.

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