Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 8420
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
SUDHA N.P. – Appellant
Versus
THE KERALA STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 2741 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.EBIN MATHEW, SHRI.P.J.MATHEW, SMT.AKHILA SHOJI, SMT.ANN MARIYA PAUL
For the Respondents: SRI REJUVUE K C, SC, SPL GP, SMT DEEPA K R
Judicial reconsideration is warranted when administrative bodies dismiss permits without adequate justification or opportunity for hearing.
Headnote:The petitioner sought to quash orders concerning a construction permit for a resort based on height restrictions following natural disasters, asserting rights for commercial projects. The core committee recommended exemptions which were ignored by the District Disaster Management Authority, leading to judicial reconsideration ordered due to a lack of opportunity for hearing and proper justification. The petitioner sought justice highlighting substantial investment in tourism development.
Result: Exts.P14 and P15 are set aside; the second respondent must reconsider the matter within 30 days.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner filed for quashing building permit orders related to a resort. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. administrative body’s reliance on prior orders challenged due to lack of opportunity. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court criticized the dismissal of permit as unjustified, ordered reconsideration. (Para 5) |
| 4. writ petition disposed and mandates reconsideration within 30 days. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
"i. To call for entire records that leading to the passing of Exhibit P14 and quash the same by writ of certiorari or any other writ or any other appropriate order.
ii. To call for entire records that leading to the passing of Exhibit P15 and quash the same by writ of certiorari or any other writ or any other appropriate order iii. To pass any other order or directions this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
iv. To permit the petitioner to dispense with production of translations of the exhibits in vernacular language along with the Writ Petition "
[SIC]
2. The petitioner is a tour operator conducting tour packages all over India. The petitioner along with some other persons purchased 40 Ares of property in Wayanad District, with the intention to start a resort. The petitioner and others submitted application before the Panchayat for construction of nine buildings, and the fourth respondent issued site approval and building permit. On the basis of the permit, the petitioner constructed seven buildings. Since the construction was intended for a resort, gabled roof and certain architectural designs were provided on the main building only for attracting tourists and for a traditional Kerala look, is the submission. The petitioner submitted application for completion certificate and regularization application before the Panchayat. However, relying on the height-restriction order issued by the 2nd respondent after natural disasters in Wayanad District, the Panchayat forwarded the matter to the 2nd respondent stating that the height marginally exceeded 10 meters due to the gabled roof. The Core Committee constituted as per Ext.P5, inspected the property and submitted a report stating that exemption can be granted on condition that access to the gabled roof is permanently closed. Without considering that recommendations of the Core Committee and the District Town Planner, the 2nd respondent rejected the petitioner’s request stating that the building is a commercial construction. The grievance of the petitioner is that, there is no such restriction in Ext.P5, as far as the commercial building and residential building is concerned. Moreover, the grievance of the petitioner is that, it is an order passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Ext.P14 is the order. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. The learned Senior Government Pleader takes me through Ext.P5 order and the last paragraphs of Ext.P5. It would be better to extract 9(v) of Ext.P5 :
“v. If for any public purpose of the Government or for any other significant public purpose, it is felt that relaxation in the limits specified vide this order is necessary, the same will be considered and decided by the Chairman, District Disaster Management Authority, based on report and recommendation of Core Committee mentioned above.”
Admittedly, the Core Committee recommended that the exemption can be granted to the petitioner on condition that access to the gabled roof is permanently closed.
5. This Court perused Ext.P14 order. The only reason for rejecting the claim by the District Disaster Management Authority (for short ‘DDMA’) is that, it is a commercial building.
6. This Court perused Ext.P5 once again.
Admittedly, there is no d
