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) 6398

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
GREHA HOMES (PVT) LTD – Appellant
Versus
THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 3636 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.SAJI VARGHESE KAKKATTUMATTATHIL, SHRI.AMAL XAVIER, SHRI.AKHIL M. B.
For the Respondents: SHRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, VIDYA KURIAKOSE

Authorities must process applications in a timely manner, particularly those affecting business operations.

Headnote:This judgment pertains to WP

(C) No. 3636 of 2026, where the petitioner, a construction company, sought a writ of mandamus for road cutting permission necessary for obtaining a water connection for its property. The court found that the corporation must process the request within two weeks. Key issues included the authority and obligations of the respondents concerning the petitioner's request and the legal process involved. The court concluded with specific timelines for action to be taken by the authorities involved.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's request for permits and approvals. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's consideration and observations on the case. (Para 3)
3. court's directive for timely processing of the request. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or direction, commanding the 2nd respondent to approve and sanction Exhibit P2 request of the 3rd respondent forthwith and sanction road cutting permission enabling the petitioner to obtain water connection to the building constructed by the petitioner, namely ‘Greha Five Elements’;

(ii) Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;

(iii) Dispense with the production of English translation of documents in vernacular language (iv) Awarding the cost of these proceedings from the respondents. ”

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of construction of multi-storey building. The petitioner constructed a 5-storey building, namely `Greha Five Elements' in the property owned by the 1st petitioner at Panampally Nagar, within the jurisdiction of the respondents 1 and 2. The building complex consists of residential cum commercial area. The 2nd respondent issued occupancy certificate, is the submission. Thereafter, 3rd respondent approved the application, and forwarded a letter to the Secretary of the Corporation for sanctioning road cutting and also for intimating the necessary charges for restoration of the road. The respondents 1 and 2 are not taking any action on the request of the 3rd respondent for road cutting. Hence this writ petition.

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

4. When this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation submitted that the the application submitted by the

3rd respondent will be processed in accordance with the law.

If that is the case, this writ petition need not be retained here. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

i) The 2nd respondent is directed to process Ext.P2 request forthwith, if it is in order, and necessary fee is paid, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

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